Re: QMTest and the G++ testsuite

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

--On Wednesday, May 22, 2002 07:53:47 PM -0500 Daniel Jacobowitz 
<dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote:

> On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 04:56:03PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> In neither case is their really *built-in* support for much more than
>> that.  DejaGNU comes with a useful library full of routines that help
>> you do various things, including interactive testing and funky
>> cross-machine magic.  As Alexandre has pointed out, QMTest's library
>> is smaller at the moment.
>
> I'm not sure you can really dismiss Expect this way; you'd need an
> entire Python equivalent to Expect in order to do interactive testing
> and such a beast would be quite difficult to write.

I don't dismiss Expect. :-)  If Expect is the right thing, you could
either use PyExpect -- or just plain old Expect.  Just because QMTest
is written in Python doesn't mean your test can't do what it needs to
do in Tcl; they can coexist peacefully.

> Please don't take this wrong; a clean, modern testing framework is a
> wonderful thing.  I'm profoundly glad that you wrote one.  But it has a
> long way to go before it could ever catch up to DejaGNU in utility.

Don't worry; my skin is thick.  Being the RM will do that to you. :-)

QMTest is certainly less mature than DejaGNU; I'm sure there are bugs,
and I'm sure there are missing features.

All I'm asking for is a way for people to have a chance to use QMTest
in a productive way.  That will help us improve the tool, and -- if
we're right that it's an improvement over DejaGNU -- it will help
people get their work done on GCC.  For example, if I can test more
quickly, I can fix more bugs.

The idea is simply to allow people to choose whether to use QMTest
or DejaGNU when testing.

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com