dejagnu runtest and runtest.exp

[Manfred Hollstein]

On Sat, 18 October 1997, 14:55:39, phdm@mail.macqel.be wrote:

    >     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
    > 
    
    Well, you'll get $0 set to /anywhere/in/the/NFS/tree/runtest
    and the PATH scan will not be used.
    
    > 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?
    > 
    No.  If we want many testers, it must be possible to test with
    the native tools the user got with his OS.

Philippe,  it's not  easy  with you  :-) In  fact,  you're  right, but
dejagnu isn't  a native tool.  Of course, we   can fix this particular
problem in dejagnu's runtest script, but, if we do not pass SHELL down
to sub-makes life may get difficult for HP-UX users  as well - did you
hear about the fixed 2k buffer size in that lame sh?

Manfred