On Wed, Sep 29, 2004 at 04:24:38PM +0200, Paul J Stevens wrote: > Agreed. And that's what I'm working on already. However, doing so would be > a lot easier if we implement some kind of test-frame. > Its not a solution, tho it may help. A real solution as I said earlier is to simplify processes, enhance function calls, and probably remove hand crafted parsers for ones which are created by bison. This would really help because then there is always a maintainable interface to the parser and bison generally tries to optimize to efficiency.
> I've been trying to get autotools to build binaries in a test/ directory > where I want to build tiny binaries that will test one specific function or > group of functions. > > However I don't know enough about automake to get this to work. > > basically what I want is code in > > test/testSomefunc.c > > which includes the necessary headers from the root of the tree, and build > > test/testSomefunc > > which will either fail or succeed on execution. > > But autoreconf complains about not supporting binaries in subdirs. Could > anyone help me out in fixing Makefile.am to allow this. > Create a new Makefile.am in the subdir, and make sure there is a reference in subdirs under the root sourcedir Makefile.am Dan
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
