Re: [RFC] make check-abi

[Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>]

Don't suppose I could get you to post an updated patch....

> On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 08:53:07PM -0700, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> > 1) where do the baseline files go?? The hooks are in the current patch
> >    to make use of the configure bits. From Loren's comments, it looks
> >    like 3.2.0 baselines will be necessary for every unique target that
> >    attempts to do abi checking. If that's the case, might as well do
> >    object size checking by default anyway.
> 
> config?  config/abi?  config/abitest?

config/abi it is.

> Then baselines can go in a file named after the platform, e.g.,
> config/abi-3.2/<target_triplet>, and we can point a variable there using
> the last stanza in configure.target if we need to override choices.

Ok. Makes sense, where target_triplet is from config.guess, right?

> We could either parse the libtool_VERSION varaible, or just use libstdc++.so.
> For Linux it follows the symlink (that's what my scripts are using),
> for BSD the file is named libstdc++.so anyway.

Aaaah. I get what y'all are talking about now. Ok. This makes perfect sense.

> > 3) should system() be used instead of automake-direct-quoting insanity?
> 
> That's my vote.  There are going to be problems eventually either way
> (requiring GNU binutils), so whether we make the call from compiled code
> or from scripts makes no difference.

Ok. Well, this would take care of the other Makefile issues, namely make
check-abi being unconditional at the moment. Then the
testsuite/Makefile.am dependiencies could get removed.

Building abi_check.cc always isn't a big deal to me. Sound ok?

> > 4) the testsuite/* directory is starting to get a bunch more stuff in
> > it. Should testsuite/util (or whatever) be started? I'm not quite sure
> > this is a big issue, or one that has to be addressed right now, but
> > still. Curious.
> 
> I would hold off a bit longer, but I don't feel strongly about it.

My vote too. 

thanks,
benjamin