[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: amendments to backtick-removing series
From: |
Jim Meyering |
Subject: |
Re: amendments to backtick-removing series |
Date: |
Wed, 04 Apr 2012 17:29:39 +0200 |
Bernhard Voelker wrote:
> 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 "$RUN_LONG_TESTS"; then
> # Take them in pairs.
>
> So shouldn't this ~20sec part of the test be moved into
> a very_expensive_ guard?
Good idea.
Wow. That code hasn't been touch since the last millennium ;-)
> And if that part runs, then the test fails (at least here)
> because of parenb and cread options.
>
> Do they have to be excluded?
That makes sense, since parenb and cread are already exempted in
the preceding one-at-a-time on/off tests.
> diff --git a/tests/misc/stty b/tests/misc/stty
> index 650231f..ef3403a 100755
> --- a/tests/misc/stty
> +++ b/tests/misc/stty
> @@ -79,8 +79,10 @@ done
> if test -n "$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, 2012/04/04
- Re: amendments to backtick-removing series,
Jim Meyering <=
- [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