I agree. Builds are builds, and tests are tests. We need some separation here.
-kto On May 15, 2012, at 7:39 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: > I think it would be good to see a more general proposal for how > to handle tests in this new world, and then to see this Queens test > be a part of that design. > > -- Jon > > > On 05/15/2012 04:34 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> >> I should probably have posted this here as well... >> >> There is a newer webrev than the one below at: >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/make-test-in-build-an-option/webrev.01/ >> >> This adds: >> * Skip building test_gamma if TEST_IN_BUILD is not enabled >> * If cross-compiling, set TEST_IN_BUILD to false instead of making an early >> exit in test_gamma. >> >> /Magnus >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Request for Review: Make the Queens test ("test in build") an >> option that can be disabled >> Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 15:05:10 +0200 >> From: Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com> >> To: hotspot-...@openjdk.java.net >> >> As part of the new build system created in the build-infra project, we >> want to make it a configurable option wether or not to run the Queens >> test as part of the build. >> >> Here is a patch that introduces a new make variable, TEST_IN_BUILD, >> which controls wether to run the Queens test (test_gamma.sh) or not. If >> the variable is not explicitely set, it will default to true, mening >> that the default behaviour will be as before, that is, to run the Queens >> test. However, if you (or configure) explicitely set it to false, the >> Queens test will be skipped. >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/make-test-in-build-an-option/webrev.00 >> >> /Magnus >> >
