[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH] {yacc-work} tests: cover yacc target-specific flags, and `-v

From: Stefano Lattarini
Subject: Re: [PATCH] {yacc-work} tests: cover yacc target-specific flags, and `-v' flag handling
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:08:13 +0100
User-agent: KMail/1.13.3 (Linux/2.6.30-2-686; KDE/4.4.4; i686; ; )

On Friday 21 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 09:02:34PM CET:
> > On Friday 21 January 2011, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > > What make implementation did you test this with?  Was this on a real
> > > Solaris,
> > >
> > Yes, with Solaris 10 XPG4 make (I've just re-checked, JTBS).
> > OTOH, the test passes with Solaris CCS make.  Weird.
> I always use the CCS one.  Isn't /usr/ccs/bin before
> /usr/xpg4/bin in the default PATH anyway, or at least the
> usual setup?
Honestly I don't know.  Anyway, does this mean that I should just
stop testing with XPG4 make (and go with only CCS make), or are you
simply explaining why you haven't seen the failure before?

> > > or was this one of the heirloom tools again?  We really don't
> > > need to cater to the latter, because nobody uses them in practice.
> > >
> > Maybe, but they are very very close to their Solaris/OpenSolaris
> > counterparts, and very useful for rapid testing.  I agree that we
> > souldn't put great efforts in them (in fact, a couple of automake
> > tests currently causes Heirlooom make to segfault, but hey, who
> > cares), but if we can easily preserve a decent support for them,
> > we should.
> Okay then, but let's not let them take us hostage.
Agreed.  But this is not the case here, IMHO.

> Cheers,
> Ralf


reply via email to

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