[fpc-devel] Attn Michael: r 43417 (ordinal bithelpers)

[Florian Klämpfl]

Am 09.11.19 um 17:40 schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
> 
> 
> On Sat, 9 Nov 2019, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> 
>> On 09/11/2019 14:43, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>>>
>>> Let me know what you need extra to be able to run them with the compiler
>>> testsuite.
>>
>> Do you know which tests were copied from the existing testsuite at some
>> point? E.g. utrwsync.pp is derived from an old (buggy) version of
>> tests/test/sysutils/trwsync.pp
> 
> No, I don't know that. Where possible I kept the name, but not always.
> if a test was changed after I converted it, I have no way of knowing.
> 
> 
>>> Normally you can run them and have them report an exit code as the usual
>>> testsuite program. With minor changes they can probably produce a report
>>> similar to the one used by the compiler testsuite: the output is
>>> configurable just as in fcl-fpcunit.
>>
>> We don't need custom-formatted reports for the testsuite, just exit
>> codes from individual test programs. It seems we can easily create those
>> by simply creating programs that include individual units. The punit
>> unit can be moved to tests/tstunits when the other ones are moved to the
>> appropriate directories under tests/test/units, so it will be
>> automatically found when compiling them.
> 
> No moving, please.

It just clutters the rtl dir without any general use.
> 
> We discussed this before: I want the tests to reside with the units that
> they test. You can copy all you want, but I will only work with the 
> tests in the rtl directory and have no intention of maintaining a copy 
> of the tests in the testsuite. If some old test fails in the compiler
> testsuite, I will convert it to my suite. The above is one I seem to have
> missed.

But then you have to maintain it in a way that it is runable on all 
targets by adding proper makefiles etc., the docompile.sh is just 
useless as it tests only with the installed fpc not that one from the 
tree, there is no way to cross test, remote test, emulator test, pass 
compiler options etc.

> 
> I have extensively argued before why I think the testsuite is completely 
> unsuitable for testing single unit functionality, I will not repeat my 
> arguments again.

Well, I still call them void :)

> 
> I will give all help you need in order to integrate that suite somehow with
> the daily test run, but that help is subject to the above condition.