On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Jeremy White wrote: [...]
Also it seems the consensus is that we should simply check the exit status of the test, not compare the test output.
Sorry, this wasn't clear. That is the default behavior.I preserved the pattern and reference checking as an optional addition.
I think we should definitely be able to check the test output against a reference version.
[...]
2. I really don't like that a C/Winelib test requires its own directory (see samples/sample3). However, AFAICT, that was the only way to create a simple and clean build environment for the Winelib app.
You don't need to. You can do things like winemaker does and then you can put as many executables and libraries as you like in a single directory. But you may not be able to reuse the standard @MAKE_PROG_RULES@.
That's the problem with C tests. You cannot have one executable for each test, at least not with Winelib, so we need a way to build multiple tests inside a single executable. Not very hard, but there's a bit of work involved.
Why can't you have one executable per test? Or is there some test/check confusion here? One check per executable, or perl file for that matter would be crazy.
-- Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ La terre est une bêta...