This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: autotools transition report: need a flag day
Phil Edwards wrote:
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 09:43:14AM -0700, Dan Kegel wrote:
cd $TARGET/$LIBSTDCXX_DIR/testsuite
runtest --tool=$LIBSTDCXX_TEST --target=$TARGET -v || echo Some $LIBSTDCXX_TEST test failed...
Try adding "make site.exp" between those commands.
I already do that... my whole script is at
http://www.kegel.com/crosstool/current/crosstest.sh
(I'm invoking runtest directly
rather than 'make check'. Guess I'm paying for that now, but
invoking it directly makes it a lot easier to figure out how
options get passed to runtest :-)
Simplifying only a tiny bit, the generated make lines are basically:
AM_RUNTESTFLAGS =
RUNTESTDEFAULTFLAGS = --tool $$tool --srcdir $$srcdir
RUNTESTFLAGS =
DEJATOOL = libstdc++
check-DEJAGNU: site.exp
srcdir=/path/to/source; \
l='$(DEJATOOL)'; for tool in $$l; do \
runtest $(AM_RUNTESTFLAGS) $(RUNTESTDEFAULTFLAGS) $(RUNTESTFLAGS); \
done; \
Once, the variables and loops come out, it's just
runtest --tool libstdc++ --srcdir /path/to/source
with the target and everything else taken from the generated site.exp.
The way you pass additional flags is by setting RUNTESTFLAGS on the make
command line:
make check RUNTESTFLAGS="--verbose"
Yes, I'm aware of that. All that machinery gives me the willies. The
gcc makefiles are exceedingly complex, and when I was figuring out how
remote testing all worked, bypassing the makefile gunk really helped keep my head from exploding.
Still, now that I'm comfortable with my understanding of things,
I might try using "make check-gcc" and "make check-g++" again.
Nevertheless, it'd be nice if the naming for libstdc++ was consistent.
How hard would it be to drive a stake through the heart of the -v3 suffix?
- Dan
--
Dan Kegel
http://www.kegel.com
http://counter.li.org/cgi-bin/runscript/display-person.cgi?user=78045