[fpc-devel] Attn Michael: r 43417 (ordinal bithelpers)
Michael Van Canneyt
michael at freepascal.org
Sat Nov 9 18:08:28 CET 2019
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
> 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.
More information about the fpc-devel