On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Benjamin Kramer <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 18.04.2012, at 17:08, Manuel Klimek wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Benjamin Kramer >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On 18.04.2012, at 16:40, Manuel Klimek wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> the attached patch adds a test for RAV based on the tooling >>>> infrastructure. It also includes some FIXME tests which require fixes >>>> in RAV itself / the AST and which are basically impossible to test >>>> with an integration level test. >>>> >>>> Some of the classes at the beginning in the file are probably going to >>>> be pulled out when other tests want to use them (for example, in the >>>> tooling branch I use the TestVisitor for tests of the refactoring >>>> library). I have no idea where to pull them though, and wanted to get >>>> feedback on the general idea first. My general feeling is that it's >>>> still too much overhead to pull out a test like this, but I'd rather >>>> have smaller steps here than overarchitect a solution. >>>> >>>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Can this be merged into the "Tooling" unittest binary? We already have >>> enough binaries around that link virtually everything of clang, slowing >>> down build times for no reason. >> >> I can link it any way you want :) In fact, we can link together a >> whole bunch of unit tests into a single binary, if you're concerned >> about linking times... >> >> Do you propose to also put the code into Tooling/ or leave it under AST/? > > I think our build system requires to have them all in Tooling/ so it's not > like we have an option. ;)
Oh, the makefile build - I really need to not forget about it all the time ... Attached an updated patch. Cheers, /Manuel
ravtest.patch
Description: Binary data
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
