New files checked in.

New files checked in.

[Anthony Green]

I've checked in a few of the new tests from HP. Andrew Haley did the
initial conversion to make them work in our framework.

If you run them, you'll see that the test count isn't significantly
higher than before.  It has to do with how the tests are counted.
Their code tries all kinds of things and only register failures when
they happen, whereas we like to keep track of `passes' as well.  My
hope is that that these files will slowly migrate over to using the
harness.check methods rather than just harness.fail.  If anyone feels
inspired, that would be very helpful.

There's plenty more to say, but I have to run.  More later.

AG

-- 
Anthony Green                                               Cygnus Solutions
                                                       Sunnyvale, California

New files checked in.

[Anthony Green]

I've checked in a few of the new tests from HP. Andrew Haley did the
initial conversion to make them work in our framework.

If you run them, you'll see that the test count isn't significantly
higher than before.  It has to do with how the tests are counted.
Their code tries all kinds of things and only register failures when
they happen, whereas we like to keep track of `passes' as well.  My
hope is that that these files will slowly migrate over to using the
harness.check methods rather than just harness.fail.  If anyone feels
inspired, that would be very helpful.

There's plenty more to say, but I have to run.  More later.

AG

-- 
Anthony Green                                               Cygnus Solutions
                                                       Sunnyvale, California

Re: New files checked in.

[Andrew Haley]

> Date: Sun, 14 Mar 1999 09:05:45 -0800
> From: Anthony Green <green@cygnus.com>
> 
> I've checked in a few of the new tests from HP. Andrew Haley did the
> initial conversion to make them work in our framework.
> 
> If you run them, you'll see that the test count isn't significantly
> higher than before.  It has to do with how the tests are counted.
> Their code tries all kinds of things and only register failures when
> they happen, whereas we like to keep track of `passes' as well.  My
> hope is that that these files will slowly migrate over to using the
> harness.check methods rather than just harness.fail.  If anyone feels
> inspired, that would be very helpful.

I've converted every instance of

	if (testcase)
          harness.fail ("Error");

to
        harness.check (!(testcase),
          "Error");

I did this automatically and have not attempted to rationalize any of
the tests.  This means that you'll see a lot of things like

	harness.check(!( !nan.isNaN())

but at least you'll now get a more accurate count of test passes.
This doesn't work in every case, because there are many instances of
things like

		try {
			testcase;
		}
		catch ( Exception e )
		{
			harness.fail("Error");	
		}

and
                if (testcase)
		{
			System.out.print (diagnostic);
			harness.fail("Error");	
		}

which do not easily fit into the harness.check() way of doing things.

Andrew.