[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] introduce AT_SKIP_IF and AT_FAIL_IF

From: Eric Blake
Subject: Re: [PATCH] introduce AT_SKIP_IF and AT_FAIL_IF
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:10:22 +0000 (UTC)
User-agent: Loom/3.14 (

Paolo Bonzini <bonzini <at>> writes:

> > 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
> I think it's not trivial either to change it.  I doubt it makes a difference 
> practice, there are not many Autotest users and even fewer AT_XFAIL_IF
> users.

Then let's leave AT_XFAIL_IF alone until (unless?) someone complains about it 
being different in practice.

| -AT_CHECK(address@hidden || exit 99)
| +AT_CHECK(address@hidden || exit 99])
|  @end example
|  @noindent
|  so that such output is properly recorded in the @file{testsuite.log}

Good; it looks like you've already squashed in the doc changes suggested by 
Ralf, prior to this delta.

| +AT_CHECK(address@hidden || exit 77])
|  @end example
|  so that such output is properly recorded in the @file{testsuite.log}

Missing @noindent, compared to the other instance.

> > at_fn_check_skip takes two arguments, not one (what LINE do you plan on
> > using for AT_FAIL_IF)?
> AT_LINE works.

| -m4_ifval([$1], [$1 && ])at_fn_check_skip $2])# _AT_CHECK_EXIT
| +m4_ifval([$1], [($1) && ])at_fn_check_skip $2 "$at_srcdir/AT_LINE"])# 

That turned into a long line (and $1 might be long by itself).  How about this 
rendition instead?

m4_ifval([$1], [($1) \
  && ])at_fn_check_skip $2 "$at_srcdir/AT_LINE"])# _AT_CHECK_EXIT

Feel free to push it after squashing in the last nits; I don't think we need to 
see any more iterations.

Eric Blake

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]