Bruno Haible wrote: > Hi, > > For a long time, we've written our test programs in *.m4 macros in such a way > that when they fail, the return code is 1. > > But often we have several tests, combined in a single program. > Example: m4/utimes.m4. > > Eric's new style is to use a different return code (1, 2, 3, ...) at every > possible failure point. This return code is then printed in the config.log. > Example: m4/chown.m4. > > Or even bit masks, as in m4/fcntl-o.m4. > > I'd like to extend this style to all AC_RUN_IFELSE invocations in gnulib, > so that > 1) When gnulib is being ported to a new platform, we can understand > which of the portability flaws affect the platform, without running > test programs by hand, just by running ./configure and analyzing > config.log. > 2) Sometimes parts of tests are unreliable (e.g. m4/utimes.m4 on NFS > mounted file systems). When someone reports a test failure, here too > it is convenient for us to be able to say "send us your config.log" > rather than having to execute test programs by hand. > > Of course these return codes shall all be < 126. > > Opinions? Objections?
It would be an improvement. I see no disadvantage.
