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

[Florian Klämpfl]

Am 09.11.19 um 18:08 schrieb 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. 

Yes. As the rtl is fundamental, it is tested together with the compiler.

> What matters is we have the tests.

Yes. But I see no point in having the rtl tests cluttered to different 
locations.

> 
> 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; 

See? This is what I do not like about this approach :) It is for your 
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.

I see no point in such duplication of code which must be manually updated.

> 
> 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.

But you expect the compiler developers to do so? Changes in the compiler 
affect often the rtl. So when testing the compiler, it is useful to test 
the rtl as well. As the compiler is tested by tests/ rtl tests are 
located there as well.

> 
>>> 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.

If everybody starts to add it's own way of testing, we will end up with 
a big mess.

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