dejagnu runtest and runtest.exp

[Manfred Hollstein]

On Wed, 15 October 1997, 21:17:20, law@hurl.cygnus.com wrote:

    
      In message < 199710131816.OAA06348@subrogation.cygnus.com >you write:
      >    Date: Mon, 13 Oct 1997 12:06:48 -0600
      >    From: Jeffrey A Law <law@cygnus.com>
      > 
      >      In message < 199710111653.SAA00464@saturn.s-direktnet.de >you write:
      >      >     Wed Oct  8 12:40:14 1997  Manfred Hollstein US/EC4 60/1/110 #402
      > 83  <ma
      >      > nfred@lts.sel.alcatel.de>
      >      >     
      >      >     	* config.shared (FLAGS_TO_PASS): Add SHELL.
      >    Is this still needed after installing Ian's patch?
      > 
      > Yes, this is to work around the problem that runtest is invoked with
      > $0 set to simply "runtest" without including a patch.
    So, with the patch to runtest to search PATH the patch to pass
    SHELL down through FLAGS_TO_PASS shouldn't be needed?
    
    Sorry if I'm being dense, but I want to make sure this problem
    gets addressed correctly and I'm not aware of all the issues.
    
    jeff
    
Sorry for being so  late; I had   to enjoy a management  training last
week :-)

I still think the SHELL patch is needed. What about if someone passes

  RUNTEST=/anywhere/in/the/NFS/tree/runtest

on  the  make command  line, which actually  is a  test version (e.g.)
only. BUT, it doesn't even appear in any $PATH directory or (worse) in
a directory *after*    the official (another)  runtest  version. Which
dejagnu config files will then be used?

I think  with this  in  background, the $PATH   hack isn't a  reliable
solution, obviously; on  systems with such lame  sh's we should  add a
strong advice like:

   If your /bin/sh is a very old (and lame) one, which e.g. doesn't
   set $0 for shell scripts to the appropriate value (i.e. the full
   pathname), you actually should use GNU bash if you intend to run
   make check on your particular target platform!

Do you agree?

Manfred