[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: amendments to backtick-removing series
From: |
Bernhard Voelker |
Subject: |
Re: amendments to backtick-removing series |
Date: |
Wed, 04 Apr 2012 16:48:08 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120312 Thunderbird/11.0 |
On 04/04/2012 04:13 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
>> Jim Meyering <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> diff --git a/tests/misc/stty b/tests/misc/stty
>>> index 97020e8..fa66a1a 100755
>>> --- a/tests/misc/stty
>>> +++ b/tests/misc/stty
>>> @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ for opt in $options; do
>>>
>>> # Likewise, 'stty -cread' would fail, so skip that, too.
>>> test $opt = cread && continue
>>> - rev=$(eval echo "\$REV_$opt")
>>> + eval \$REV_$opt
>>
>> That's not what I wrote.
>
> Indeed not.
> Send a patch next time, and I'll be less likely to botch it.
I think this code hasn't been run for a very long time,
because RUN_LONG_TESTS is not set anywhere.
if test -n "$RUN_LONG_TESTS"; then
# Take them in pairs.
So shouldn't this ~20sec part of the test be moved into
a very_expensive_ guard?
And if that part runs, then the test fails (at least here)
because of parenb and cread options.
Do they have to be excluded?
diff --git a/tests/misc/stty b/tests/misc/stty
index 650231f..ef3403a 100755
--- a/tests/misc/stty
+++ b/tests/misc/stty
@@ -79,8 +79,10 @@ done
if test -n "$RUN_LONG_TESTS"; then
# Take them in pairs.
for opt1 in $options; do
+ case $opt1 in parenb|cread) continue;; esac
echo .|tr -d '\n'
for opt2 in $options; do
+ case $opt2 in parenb|cread) continue;; esac
stty $opt1 $opt2 || fail=1
Have a nice day,
Berny
- amendments to backtick-removing series, Jim Meyering, 2012/04/04
- Re: amendments to backtick-removing series, Andreas Schwab, 2012/04/04
- Re: amendments to backtick-removing series, Jim Meyering, 2012/04/04
- Re: amendments to backtick-removing series, Andreas Schwab, 2012/04/04
- Re: amendments to backtick-removing series, Jim Meyering, 2012/04/04
- Re: amendments to backtick-removing series,
Bernhard Voelker <=
- Re: amendments to backtick-removing series, Jim Meyering, 2012/04/04
- [PATCH] refactor expensive code in misc/stty [was: amendments to backtick-removing series], Bernhard Voelker, 2012/04/05
- Re: [PATCH] refactor expensive code in misc/stty [was: amendments to backtick-removing series], Jim Meyering, 2012/04/05
- Re: [PATCH] refactor expensive code in misc/stty [was: amendments to backtick-removing series], Bernhard Voelker, 2012/04/05
- Re: [PATCH] refactor expensive code in misc/stty [was: amendments to backtick-removing series], Jim Meyering, 2012/04/05
- Re: [PATCH] refactor expensive code in misc/stty [was: amendments to backtick-removing series], Bernhard Voelker, 2012/04/10
- Re: [PATCH] refactor expensive code in misc/stty [was: amendments to backtick-removing series], Jim Meyering, 2012/04/19
- Re: [PATCH] refactor expensive code in misc/stty [was: amendments to backtick-removing series], Bernhard Voelker, 2012/04/19
- Re: [PATCH] refactor expensive code in misc/stty [was: amendments to backtick-removing series], Jim Meyering, 2012/04/19