[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: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: [PATCH] introduce AT_SKIP_IF and AT_FAIL_IF
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 13:32:20 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-15)

* Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 04:10:22PM CEST:
> 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 in
> > 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.

I think I can remember a couple of occasions where this particular
semantics of AT_XFAIL_IF was either unexpected or undesired; at
least within the Libtool testsuite it has caused some churn before.

However, I also think that changing the semantics is a problematic
thing to do, as it very likely breaks compatibility.  I am not sure
if it is better to document the current semantics, and maybe provide
another macro that updates xfail status at the point it is invoked.


reply via email to

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