stdcxx-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eric Lemings" <Eric.Lemi...@roguewave.com>
Subject RE: Regression tests file structure
Date Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:32:39 GMT
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Sebor [mailto:sebor@roguewave.com] 
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 1:03 PM
> To: dev@stdcxx.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Regression tests file structure
> 
> Eric Lemings wrote:
> >  
> > Not that it really matters but I noticed lots of rather 
> small programs
> > for the regression tests.  Couldn't these be consolidated into fewer
> > source files, by component perhaps, with a function for 
> each individual
> > regression test?  Just a thought.
> 
> I'm sure they could, and it would probably benefit our build
> times. The problem is that a severe failure in one of them
> (build or runtime) would cause the rest of them to fail too.
> Getting around it would require non-trivial changes to our
> build harness (e.g., build each test into a separate object
> file, linking them all together into a single executable,
> and on a runtime failure in one re-link all those that
> didn't get to run into a new executable, and repeat).

Mmm, that's not quite what I had in mind.  Here's an example of what I
had in mind:

test/regress/21.string.cpp:
...
static void
test_stdcxx_162 () {
...
}

static void
test_stdcxx_231 () {
...
}

static void
test_stdcxx_466 () {
...
}

static void
run_tests () {
  test_stdcxx_162 ();
  test_stdcxx_231 ();
  test_stdcxx_466 ();
}

All regression tests related to the same component (i.e. clause) are
contained in the same source file.  That wouldn't require build/test
harness changes, would it?  And yes a build or run failure would cause
them all to fail but I'd see that as real incentive for correcting the
failure.  :)

Brad.

Mime
View raw message