[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: make test

From: Eve-Marie Devaliere
Subject: Re: make test
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 11:39:35 -0500
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7

Thanks Frank and Eric for the prompt replies!

> Autoconf includes the 'autotest' language, which parses a new file
> to build up a (shell script) testsuite; as well as
> documentation for a couple of hooks to add in and your
> Makefile to run such a testsuite.  Such tests need not be C programs -
> they are anything that you can drive via shell snippets.  In fact,
> autoconf's own testsuite is written in the autotest language.  But I'm
> not sure if this is what you had in mind.
I had seen that but got afraid using it because of the warning 'This
section describes a feature which is still**stabilizing.'
Since the shell script already exists, I am not sure that would be my
best option either...
> Meanwhile, Automake has support for building up a testsuite based on
> various input files, maybe it's easier to use?
Yes, Frank pointed me to that and I was just having a look... Thanks, I
think this is what I am looking for.  I am still trying to figure out
which '' needs this and trying to find more example.... (I
have 2 suites of tests to make in 2 different directories under 'test',
and each of those directories is further decomposed into 4
subdirectories - would I need one in each subdirectory or
can I make it work from the in the test directory?)
> AC_TRY_RUN is for determining a platform characteristic at configure
> time, not for running a testsuite at make time.  I think you're
> confusing the issue, and don't need AC_TRY_RUN for a make-time test.
> Also, AC_TRY_RUN is an obsolete wrapper around the newer AC_RUN_IFELSE
> macro; this macro does not inherently require a C compiler, but runs a
> configure-time compile/run/cross-compile-guess based on the current
> language being probed in the file (which is usually C, but
> can be Fortran).
Thanks for the explanation. Yes I am confused... :)
> Furthermore, if your Makefile already knows how to run your tests, then
> your (if you only use autoconf) or (if you also
> use automake) can preserve those test rules as-is, and still run those
> tests as you have always done as part of make.
ohhh, would you mind pointing to a ressource for that?, that may work
even better... I use both autoconf and automake....
the makefile I get from using autoconf/automake is however different
than the one I (well my colleague) had before... although isn't the
point to get away from the 'standard way' of doing this...?

Thanks a lot,

reply via email to

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