[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: Question about testing a library.

From: Schrader, Glenn
Subject: RE: Question about testing a library.
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:03:36 -0400

Exactly. My solution is similar to what you suggest. I was just hoping that I'd 
missed something. Since automake is 'just' perl it seems to be fairly hackable. 
If I come up with anything worth sharing I'll pass it along.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralf Wildenhues [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2008 4:25 PM
> To: Schrader, Glenn
> Cc: address@hidden
> Subject: Re: Question about testing a library.
> * Schrader, Glenn wrote on Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 10:01:00PM CEST:
> >
> > This is exactly what doesn't work. All programs other than the check_
> > programs are unconditionally built by the default 'all' target. There
> > doesn't seem to be a clean way to defer building my tests until the
> > user explicitly does a 'make installcheck'.
> Hmm.  Re-reading the whole thread, I finally understand what you aim
> for.  Letting installcheck link programs against the just-installed
> libraries, in order to test that they work properly; and you were hoping
> that automake could provide the (link) rules for generating those
> programs for you.
> Nice idea, thanks!  Even with libtool's philosophy of making things
> testable before installation.
> Not sure how to provide this, yet.  For now I guess you could write
>   $(LIBTOOL) --mode=link ...
> rules yourself, and hook them into installcheck-local (or otherwise make
> them prerequisites of your installcheck tests).
> One more TODO item.  Ideas and patches welcome.
> Cheers,
> Ralf

reply via email to

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