From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-75184-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 122146 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2016 17:48:49 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 122118 invoked by uid 89); 25 Nov 2016 17:48:48 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] extras: New test/build infrastructure
To: Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
References: <9426ee75-3e45-6cde-b659-567398007a32@redhat.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611251722360.12591@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <08a9e327-a42c-a1d4-dadc-4dddd15e3183@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2016 17:48:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611251722360.12591@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00937.txt.bz2

On 11/25/2016 06:29 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Nov 2016, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> I do not propose bulk migration at this point.  Some obscure use cases are not
>> supported by the exported hooks.
>
> I agree with the other comments about naming this something like
> libtest-support.a (and naming headers, directories accordingly).

See my other comments.  It's currently for testing only, but this will 
likely change.

> I think there would be clear advantages to setting things up so that all
> existing tests can use the new code with no changes at all.  That is, make
> test-skeleton.c look more or less like your extras/test-skeleton.c, with
> additional code to handle any missing pieces (e.g.

Can you clarify what the goal is?  If the

#include "../test-skeleton.c"

is at the end, it shall be possible to replace it with

#include <extras/test-skeleton.c>

?  Or do you want me to replace test-skeleton.c with a version which 
already includes <extras/test-skeleton.c>?  (All names subject to revision.)

Thanks,
Florian