svn commit: trunk/uClibc/test/crypt

[Carmelo AMOROSO]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Wednesday 04 March 2009 04:41:41 pm Salvatore CRO' wrote:
>> Hi Carmelo,
>> Attached is a proposal tailored for rpc test that could be very easily
>> extedend to all tests in uClibc. Indeed it avoids "include ../../.config" in
>> test Makefile by :
>>
>>   - creating a new file Makefile.in with the same contents of existing
>> Makefile but "include ../Test.mak"
>>   - replacing existing Makefile by a new one that only does some includes,
>> first one being "include ../Rules.mak" (that in turns got "include
>> ../../.config"), then includes the new Makefile.in and finally ../Test.mak
>>   - removing "include ../Rules.mak" from ../Test.mak, since we've just done
>> it in Makefile.
>>
>> By including ../Rules.mak first, we ensure that _actual_ UCLIBC_HAS_xxx
>> values (through ../../.config) get evaluated by Makefile.in to arrange the
>> TESTS variable so that all due sources are correctly compiled.
>>
>> Using this approach, Makefile is the same for all tests and contains include
>> statements only while all test-specific settings lie in the new Makefile.in 
> 
> The cure seems to be worse than the disease:
> 
> # diffstat z
>  Test.mak        |    3 ---
>  rpc/Makefile    |   11 +++--------
>  rpc/Makefile.in |   11 +++++++++++
>  3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> 
> and this includes creation of a new file.

I don't care about the amount of changes if the final solution is more
"elegant"... that's only a my opinion.
We have the same design in the libc with Makefile/Makefile.in couple.

Further, unsing -include Makefile.in, you don't need to add any
Makefile.in if not needed (i.e. no reason for using TESTS :=, or
TESTS_DISABLED and so on).
Further current solution is more error prone because you may erroneously
include ../Test.mak too early in the Makefile. With the solution
proposed you keep all the common in the Makefile and the specific, if
needed in the Makefile.in.
> 
> Why you can't just add one line, "include ../../.config", instead?
> --
> vda
> 

Carmelo

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkmvfkkACgkQoRq/3BrK1s9DCQCgmJMLGdWjOT4V7Y8xqS4bZvAg
5ZMAoKEYBM57fI31ZTwSFsUneDBhWcY9
=pcCf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----