On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 09:14 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 11:26:24AM -0400, Gaetan Nadon wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 11:56 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote: > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <peter.hutte...@who-t.net> > > > --- > > > I'll squash this in with the other patch, no need to have two separate > > > ones. > > > > > > test/Makefile.am | 2 +- > > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > > > > Now that I have cleared some of my misunderstandings, there is little > > benefits > > in using XORG_ENABLE_UNIT_TESTS for such a simple case, > > unless you foresee a more complex situation in the short term. > > But nothing wrong in using it either. It helps establishing a pattern. > > > > Using the check_PROGRAMS pattern would most likely ease maintenance and > > reduce > > the risk of errors as it would work like most/all other modules. > > > > If there is a need to build the test program in the regular build, it > > could be moved > > to the eventcomm dir. The test dir would simply make use of it. There is > > no obligation > > for programs to be built in the test dir. > > answering the other email in this one too: > > check_PROGRAMS are the list of binaries built on 'make check'. > TESTS are the list of binaries executed on 'make check' > > this is what we currently use in the server. the problem with it is that if > the checks take a while, people are less inclined to run make check. the > result of this is that tests may have build errors until someone who > actually runs make check notices. > > the reason why i chose noinst_PROGRAMS here is so that the tests > built when running 'make', but _executed_ when running 'make check'. > this avoids the aforementioned build errors in the tests. so yes, > noinst_PROGRAMS was quite intentional here, and I'm planning to send out a > similar patch for the server. > > as for the XORG_ENABLE_UNIT_TESTS, I don't mind having it there, it has no > maintainance requirement and if someone absolutely wants to disable the unit > tests, so be it. this makes more sense in a long-term approach if tests use > libraries that may not be available (such as glib) or if the tests require a > certain setup that may not be available (e.g. running X server). > > Cheers, > Peter > > > > > diff --git a/test/Makefile.am b/test/Makefile.am > > > index 16502ee..0b45a2d 100644 > > > --- a/test/Makefile.am > > > +++ b/test/Makefile.am > > > @@ -1,3 +1,4 @@ > > > +if ENABLE_UNIT_TESTS > > > AM_CPPFLAGS = -I$(top_srcdir)/src > > > AM_CFLAGS = $(XORG_CFLAGS) $(CWARNFLAGS) > > > fake_syms = fake-symbols.c fake-symbols.h > > > @@ -10,6 +11,5 @@ eventcomm_test_SOURCES = eventcomm-test.c\ > > > $(fake_syms) > > > endif > > > > > > -if ENABLE_UNIT_TESTS > > > TESTS = $(noinst_PROGRAMS) > > > endif > >
Reviewed-by: Gaetan Nadon <mems...@videotron.ca>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel@lists.x.org: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel