On 19/09/12 08:18, Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
I already suggested to use a test property three years ago (see issue #8466). At that time David was very much against it, fearing to find "a ***huuuuuuggggeee*** can of worms right underneath the surface." Seems I'm slowly getting more fellow thinkers ;)David Cole wrote:I don't like it. Existing tests that run and return, for example, a number of errors that occurred, will magically appear as "not run" when that number just so happens to be 77.If there are enough people who think this is "simple and works" and are not concerned about the accidental matching of an intentional return value of 77 that does NOT mean "not run" ... then I will relent and say, so be it, and allow it in. But only if there are some people who speak up here or add notes to the bug. It just seems wrong to me to treat 77 as some special number here.I would still go and make that a target property where you can set the return code where something is considered skipped. The only question is: how to name the property? Eike -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Regards, Marcel Loose.
<<attachment: loose.vcf>>
-- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
