Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 08:48:07 +0200 (IST) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Martin Stromberg cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: The test directory (djtst203.zip) In-Reply-To: <200001111402.PAA07929@spica-144.lu.erisoft.se> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Tue, 11 Jan 100, Martin Stromberg wrote: > > There's another problem with djtst: the test programs usually don't > > tell you whether the results are okay or not. You need to examine the > > results and decide that by yorself. Sometimes this decision requires > > a fairly good knowledge of library internals. > > Yeah, but the plan was to generate a log file of the output of make, > then do my FAT32 changes and running it again and diff the log files. > If the making starts to work perhaps a log file from DJ should be > added (to djtst), as "this_worked_at_DJs_compilation.log"? You are assuming that each test program prints something meaningful, and that it prints it to stdout/stderr. This is not true for quite a few of the programs. For example, even the Cygnus test suite included in djtst, which IMHO comes closest to being a true regression test suite, reports its results to a file. > > We usually try very hard to avoid using anything but stock djdev > > binaries (and Make). Thus, `find', Bash, and `pwd' are out. You can > > instead use the special programs (like makemake.exe, misc.exe, etc.) > > written specifically for building djlsr without any other GNU tools. > > Yeah, but the test suite (djtst) isn't djlsr! Still, IMHO we should not require fancy tools. The technology is there already: using the same method as in djlsr is simple.