On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:34:05PM +0300, Martin Storsjö wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Oct 2016, Martin Storsjö wrote:
> >On Fri, 7 Oct 2016, Martin Storsjö wrote:
> >>On Fri, 7 Oct 2016, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >>>On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 10:45:47AM +0300, Martin Storsjö wrote:
> >>>>On Fri, 7 Oct 2016, Diego Biurrun wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> This can be useful in known-broken scenarios like miscompilation
> >>>>> by legacy compilers and similar.
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Yeah, one could come up with more elaborate solutions, but this already
> >>>>> works and we have cases where it could be useful right away...
> >>>>
> >>>>This looks like a good improvement over the current situation, thanks!
> >>>>
> >>>>I guess this should be included in the output sent to fate as well
> >>>>(and shown there in some way)? Initially I guess one can add it to
> >>>>the
> >comments
> >>>>column.
> >>>
> >>>It shows up in the configure line; do you want it shown somewhere else?
> >>>
> >>>And yeah, I'd probably add it to the comments field of my own FATE
> >>>instances if I used the option.
> >>
> >>I thought of a separate column next to the comments (which is already
> >>used for other things in many setups), but plugging it into the comments
> >>probably is good for the first step.
> >
> >In any case, if I was unclear, this patch LGTM.
> 
> Any further comments on this, or interest in pushing it? I'd like to take it
> into use.

I was kinda waiting for Janne to make a comment since I spoke with him
about this idea in Berlin. But I guess this is good to go.

I had one idea how to improve/change this: I could automatically add the
"fate-" prefix to the test name to shorten the command line. So

--skip-tests="fate-foo-test fate-bar-test"

vs

--skip-tests="foo-test bar-test"

What would you prefer?

Diego
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
libav-devel@libav.org
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel

Reply via email to