On 5/16/2014 7:09 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote: > Hello Joel, > > I think this rtems_test_* stuff is a hack. What we really need in the long > run > is a proper test framework. I don't disagree but we have to have confidence in what is done now.
You added rtems_test_end* and the TEST_END() macro. They do not appear to have been applied to the testsuite consistently. + block08 defined its own version of TEST_END() and you missed correcting that. + Some tests directly call rtems_test_end() which seems wrong. + Some call rtems_test_endk() directly which may be OK if they have a good reason not to possibly use printf(). But a TEST_ENDK would have been more consistent and at least a comment explaining why it needed to use rtems_test_endk(). > On 2014-05-15 17:53, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> Hi >> >> Some tests call rtems_test_end() directly. I haven't >> checked all but some just need to change to call >> TEST_END(). >> >> But the samples may need to follow their own rules. >> >> And the block* tests appear to have their own TEST_END() >> macro in bdbuf_tests.h. And it calls rtems_test_end() or >> rtems_test_endk() directly. > I converted this mostly using some scripts. The goal was to use TEST_END() > as > much as possible. > >> This started with an examination of leon3 test output. >> At least sp39 can exit with a "END OF" message and >> a failure message. That needs to be fixed and is pretty >> easy. > Yes, tests printing "END OF" in case of a test failure are broken. > >> Any thoughts on all this? >> > -- Joel Sherrill, Ph.D. Director of Research & Development joel.sherr...@oarcorp.com On-Line Applications Research Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS Huntsville AL 35805 Support Available (256) 722-9985 _______________________________________________ rtems-devel mailing list rtems-devel@rtems.org http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
