harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [drlvm][jvmti][testing] I want to add JVMTI tests to drlvm commit checks
Date Mon, 13 Nov 2006 07:41:28 GMT


Gregory Shimansky wrote:
> On Sunday 12 November 2006 00:39 Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>>> Ok I think I've come up with a reasonable compromise. I still used the
>>> whole system of converting XML and all the stuff. It does quite a lot of
>>> things in setup and init targets and using <select> is convenient. I
>>> don't know how to untangle all of the setup and not do a lot of
>>> duplication in ant scripting which I am not big expert in.
>> Why?  Why do we want to persist with this system, when WE ARE GOING TO
>> GET RID OF IT at some point?
> 
> One reason would be is that I don't know ant well enough to redesign the whole 
> stuff all together. I used the existing setup and init targets which take 
> care of including ancontrip and cctask jars.
> 
> If you ask me, I'd prefer make in the first place, ant is just too foreign to 
> me. There is no reason to use caps, we didn't even start to discuss how we 
> want to see drlvm build and "when WE ARE GOING TO GET RID OF IT at some 
> point".

The caps were to get your attention.  I thought you had a nice way to 
create a standalone testbed and then hook that in.

> 
>> Did you also fix the silliness of having to use annotations to exclude
>> tests?  Please? :)
> 
> No, the patch has an exclude example using and <exclude> statement in 
> patternset in its beginning.

Yay!

> 
>> I'm glad we have these tests, but really...  I wish you hadn't invested
>> the time integrating it into the DRLVM build system...
> 
> Even if we write a new one from scratch I want the tests right now. There were 
> several times when JVMTI was broken since there were no tests for it at all 
> since it is a special VM mode no one usually uses.

That's not the issue - we all agree we need the tests right now.  What 
I'm arguing about is doing the tests, and then doing the integration 
into a build system we don't want.

> 
> The time invested, well... I learned a lot since the last time I used ant. 
> Maybe one day I'll be able to write something as impressive and 
> unmaintainable as the current drlvm built :)
> 
> Seriously, if we're going to change it, let's discuss it how we want it to 
> look like and which tool we'll use. I vote for make (gnu version, that is 
> gmake), even on win32 it exists in cygwin and mingw.
> 

I think that we should simply use the same tooling that we're using now 
in classlib.

geir


Mime
View raw message