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

[Michael Van Canneyt]

On Sat, 9 Nov 2019, Florian Klämpfl wrote:

>>> 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.

The same directories exist in many of the packages, with fcl-fpcunit based
tests. I don't hear anyone complaining. What matters is we have the tests.

>> 
>> 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.

It is to make this all possible that I offered to help.

I am aware that the docompile.sh is suitable for my setup only; 
I didn't claim this was the solution for the testsuite.

I suspect that for integration in the testsuite, one or more separate programs 
must be made. Most likely some copying will need to be done. 
All no problem for me.

As I said: I have only 1 condition: the sources stay in the rtl dir so test
results can be obtained in a matter of seconds, not minutes.

>> 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 have no doubts on that score. The discussion ended without agreement.
That is why I didn't bother to add my code to SVN.

But I (must) do the tests, and I intend to do them in a way that suits my
style of development.

But if you prefer, I can remove the code again, no problem. it's your call.

Michael.