On 18/02/15 19:04, Jose Fonseca wrote:
Right. I did misunderstood how this was supposed to be used. I saw
piglit_report_subtest_result callers that had many partial
sub-conditions.
But I now see that there's the test pass/fail, and then the subtest
pass/fail, and each can be aggregated of multiple sub-conditions, and
test writers usually need to do "foo = foo && condition" at both
levels. You macros target the case where each subtest is one
condition/error exactly.
Exactly :)
So I just wondered if it wouldn't be worthwhile to devise some scheme
that would completely eliminate the need for test writers to keep
track of these aggregated pass/fail variables.
That would indeed be a good idea! Possibly have
piglit_report_subtest_result() keep track if there have been one failure
or not and then letting the developer query this state before returning
the right error code.
How does this sound? I could try to propose a patch for this.
_______________________________________________
Piglit mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/piglit
