svn commit: trunk/uClibc/test/crypt

[Carmelo Amoroso]

Carmelo AMOROSO wrote:
> 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
> 

Has some other any objections against this design ?

Carmelo
_______________________________________________
uClibc mailing list
uClibc at uclibc.org
http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/uclibc