Re: [PATCH] introduce AT_SKIP_IF and AT_FAIL_IF

[Eric Blake]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

According to Eric Blake on 7/13/2009 6:17 AM:
> According to Paolo Bonzini on 7/12/2009 5:09 AM:
>> These are lightweight versions of AT_CHECK that automatically
>> add the equivalent of ! in front of the command and change a
>> failure exit status to 77 resp. 99.  They expand to just
>> two lines of shell code at the expense of not supporting
>> tracing (but then so does AT_XFAIL_IF).
> 
> I like the idea.  But there were enough nits, so let's see a revised patch
> before you push anything.

Also, the current semantics of AT_XFAIL_IF are that all conditions are
collected up front, and then run before any of the group even if they were
written after the tests.  I like the semantics of these two macros better
(tests run prior to this point are run as-is, so you can rely on a
'skipped' test meaning that everything before the skip is still good).
Part of me thinks it might be nice to change AT_XFAIL_IF to use similar
semantics, but then the other part worries about backwards compatibility
if we change it now (in other words, would delaying when AT_XFAIL_IF
conditions are tested lead to any potential failures in existing clients
of AT_XFAIL_IF, where the test no longer reports a proper XFAIL?).  Thoughts?

- --
Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well!

Eric Blake             address@hidden
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkpbJ0MACgkQ84KuGfSFAYDAkgCdETVn82LYSAnftkqxEyfnev+t
fNAAnjB1A8RKopNPw7k50oEe6h9xEr42
=3+AF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----