Re: [PATCH] Test `$(var:suf=rpl)' expansion in special automake variables.
On Saturday 18 December 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:35:43AM CET: On Saturday 18 December 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: +# Try also with `:=', to ensure the parser is not unduly confused +# into thinking that it's an unportable assignement operator. This comment is bogus, right? There is no such thing as ':=' within $(var:A=B), but there is in $(var:=x) (below this is $(t1:=.sh)). and the code below does not use := to assign variables. Indeed, and so we want to enssure the automake parser does not (errenously) think we are trying to do so. What do you mean with this text? Also try an empty match suffix.? Yes; maybe a comment like this would be better? # Also try an empty match suffix, to ensure that the `:=' in there is # not confused by the parser with an unportable assignement operator. Yes, thanks. Done and pushed to master (see first attachement). These 'test -x' commands fail on MinGW/MSYS because the file system does not actually have execute permission information. Ouch. Instead, it is emulated by looking at the file, and returning 0 if the file starts with, e.g., a COFF header or with '#!'. (The same heuristic is used when executing a script as well.) You can thus fix this by either creating actual scripts in above rules and the file creation below, or by removing the tests here. I'm not sure which you prefer. I'd prefer the former, to keep the coverage a little bigger on non-MinGW systems. Is that ok? Yes, that's what I meant. Done and pushed to master (see second attachement). Thanks, Stefano From 080d362b919118033d054cb80b85cffc6d94cab6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com Date: Sat, 18 Dec 2010 12:58:04 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Improve comments in tests `posixsubst*.test'. * tests/posixsubst-data.test: Improve comment explaining why we try also empty match suffix. * tests/posixsubst-extradist.test: Likewise. * tests/posixsubst-ldadd.test: Likewise. * tests/posixsubst-libraries.test: Likewise. * tests/posixsubst-ltlibraries.test: Likewise. * tests/posixsubst-programs.test: Likewise. * tests/posixsubst-scripts.test: Likewise. * tests/posixsubst-sources.test: Likewise. * tests/posixsubst-tests.test: Likewise. Suggested by Ralf Wildenhues. --- ChangeLog | 15 +++ tests/posixsubst-data.test|4 ++-- tests/posixsubst-extradist.test |4 ++-- tests/posixsubst-ldadd.test |4 ++-- tests/posixsubst-libraries.test |4 ++-- tests/posixsubst-ltlibraries.test |4 ++-- tests/posixsubst-programs.test|4 ++-- tests/posixsubst-scripts.test |4 ++-- tests/posixsubst-sources.test |4 ++-- tests/posixsubst-tests.test |4 ++-- 10 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog index abeaf00..6a27347 100644 --- a/ChangeLog +++ b/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,18 @@ +2010-12-18 Stefano Lattarini stefano.lattar...@gmail.com + + Improve comments in tests `posixsubst*.test'. + * tests/posixsubst-data.test: Improve comment explaining why we + try also empty match suffix. + * tests/posixsubst-extradist.test: Likewise. + * tests/posixsubst-ldadd.test: Likewise. + * tests/posixsubst-libraries.test: Likewise. + * tests/posixsubst-ltlibraries.test: Likewise. + * tests/posixsubst-programs.test: Likewise. + * tests/posixsubst-scripts.test: Likewise. + * tests/posixsubst-sources.test: Likewise. + * tests/posixsubst-tests.test: Likewise. + Suggested by Ralf Wildenhues. + 2010-12-16 Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de Fix typos in test comments. diff --git a/tests/posixsubst-data.test b/tests/posixsubst-data.test index f1ffeae..210279f 100755 --- a/tests/posixsubst-data.test +++ b/tests/posixsubst-data.test @@ -36,8 +36,8 @@ bar.data bazzardoz: : $@ CLEANFILES = bar.data bazzardoz -# Try also with `:=', to ensure the parser is not unduly confused -# into thinking that it's an unportable assignment operator. +# Also try an empty match suffix, to ensure that the `:=' in there is +# not confused by the parser with an unportable assignment operator. dist_foo_DATA = $(t1:=.txt) foo_DATA = $(t2:x=.data) nodist_foo_DATA = $(t3:.y=zardoz) diff --git a/tests/posixsubst-extradist.test b/tests/posixsubst-extradist.test index c3bf970..c9a20bf 100755 --- a/tests/posixsubst-extradist.test +++ b/tests/posixsubst-extradist.test @@ -29,8 +29,8 @@ cat Makefile.am 'END' t1 = foo1 foo2 t2 = bar.x t3 = baz-y -# Try also with `:=', to ensure the parser is not unduly confused -# into thinking that it's an unportable assignment operator. +# Also try an empty match suffix, to ensure that the `:=' in there is +# not confused by the parser with an unportable assignment operator. EXTRA_DIST = $(t1:=.c) $(t2:.x=.f) $(t3:-y=ar) bazar bar.f: : $@ diff --git a/tests/posixsubst-ldadd.test
Re: [PATCH] Test `$(var:suf=rpl)' expansion in special automake variables.
On Saturday 18 December 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Hello Stefano, * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 01:46:48PM CET: Test `$(var:suf=rpl)' expansion in special automake variables. * tests/posixsubst-data.test: New test. [...] * tests/posixsubst-scripts.test: Likewise. --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/posixsubst-scripts.test @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@ +# Test that POSIX variable expansion `$(var:str=rpl)' works when used +# with the SCRIPTS primary. +cat configure.in 'END' +AC_OUTPUT +END + +cat Makefile.am 'END' +t1 = foo1 foo2 +t2 = bar1x bar2 +t3 = quu-baz + +bar1 bar2 quux.pl: + : $@ +CLEANFILES = bar1 bar2 quux.pl + +# Try also with `:=', to ensure the parser is not unduly confused +# into thinking that it's an unportable assignement operator. This comment is bogus, right? There is no such thing as ':=' within $(var:A=B), but there is in $(var:=x) (below this is $(t1:=.sh)). and the code below does not use := to assign variables. Indeed, and so we want to enssure the automake parser does not (errenously) think we are trying to do so. What do you mean with this text? Also try an empty match suffix.? Yes; maybe a comment like this would be better? # Also try an empty match suffix, to ensure that the `:=' in there is # not confused by the parser with an unportable assignement operator. (Repetitious as it is, it the same text is in all the other tests of this patch as well.) +installcheck-local: + ls -l $(prefix)/libexec $(prefix)/bin $(prefix)/sbin + test -f $(prefix)/sbin/foo1.sh + test -x $(prefix)/sbin/foo1.sh + test -f $(prefix)/sbin/foo2.sh + test -x $(prefix)/sbin/foo2.sh + test -f $(prefix)/libexec/bar1 + test -x $(prefix)/libexec/bar1 + test -f $(prefix)/libexec/bar2 + test -x $(prefix)/libexec/bar2 + test -f $(prefix)/bin/quux.pl + test -x $(prefix)/bin/quux.pl These 'test -x' commands fail on MinGW/MSYS because the file system does not actually have execute permission information. Ouch. Instead, it is emulated by looking at the file, and returning 0 if the file starts with, e.g., a COFF header or with '#!'. (The same heuristic is used when executing a script as well.) You can thus fix this by either creating actual scripts in above rules and the file creation below, or by removing the tests here. I'm not sure which you prefer. I'd prefer the former, to keep the coverage a little bigger on non-MinGW systems. Is that ok? Regards, Stefano
Re: [PATCH] Test `$(var:suf=rpl)' expansion in special automake variables.
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 10:35:43AM CET: On Saturday 18 December 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: +# Try also with `:=', to ensure the parser is not unduly confused +# into thinking that it's an unportable assignement operator. This comment is bogus, right? There is no such thing as ':=' within $(var:A=B), but there is in $(var:=x) (below this is $(t1:=.sh)). and the code below does not use := to assign variables. Indeed, and so we want to enssure the automake parser does not (errenously) think we are trying to do so. What do you mean with this text? Also try an empty match suffix.? Yes; maybe a comment like this would be better? # Also try an empty match suffix, to ensure that the `:=' in there is # not confused by the parser with an unportable assignement operator. Yes, thanks. These 'test -x' commands fail on MinGW/MSYS because the file system does not actually have execute permission information. Ouch. Instead, it is emulated by looking at the file, and returning 0 if the file starts with, e.g., a COFF header or with '#!'. (The same heuristic is used when executing a script as well.) You can thus fix this by either creating actual scripts in above rules and the file creation below, or by removing the tests here. I'm not sure which you prefer. I'd prefer the former, to keep the coverage a little bigger on non-MinGW systems. Is that ok? Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks, Ralf
Re: [PATCH] Test `$(var:suf=rpl)' expansion in special automake variables.
Hello Stefano, * Stefano Lattarini wrote on Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 01:46:48PM CET: Test `$(var:suf=rpl)' expansion in special automake variables. * tests/posixsubst-data.test: New test. [...] * tests/posixsubst-scripts.test: Likewise. --- /dev/null +++ b/tests/posixsubst-scripts.test @@ -0,0 +1,89 @@ +# Test that POSIX variable expansion `$(var:str=rpl)' works when used +# with the SCRIPTS primary. +cat configure.in 'END' +AC_OUTPUT +END + +cat Makefile.am 'END' +t1 = foo1 foo2 +t2 = bar1x bar2 +t3 = quu-baz + +bar1 bar2 quux.pl: + : $@ +CLEANFILES = bar1 bar2 quux.pl + +# Try also with `:=', to ensure the parser is not unduly confused +# into thinking that it's an unportable assignement operator. This comment is bogus, right? There is no such thing as ':=' within $(var:A=B), and the code below does not use := to assign variables. What do you mean with this text? Also try an empty match suffix.? (Repetitious as it is, it the same text is in all the other tests of this patch as well.) +dist_sbin_SCRIPTS = $(t1:=.sh) +libexec_SCRIPTS = $(t2:x=) +nodist_bin_SCRIPTS = $(t3:-baz=x.pl) + +check-local: test1 test2 +.PHONY: test1 test2 +test1: + ls -l + test -f bar1 + test -f bar2 + test -f quux.pl +test2: distdir + ls -l $(distdir) + ## the scripts foo1.sh and foo2.sh should be distributed + test -f $(distdir)/foo1.sh + test -f $(distdir)/foo2.sh + ## the scripts bar1, bar2 and quux.pl shouldn't be distributed + test ! -r $(distdir)/bar1 + test ! -r $(distdir)/bar2 + test ! -r $(distdir)/quux.pl + +installcheck-local: + ls -l $(prefix)/libexec $(prefix)/bin $(prefix)/sbin + test -f $(prefix)/sbin/foo1.sh + test -x $(prefix)/sbin/foo1.sh + test -f $(prefix)/sbin/foo2.sh + test -x $(prefix)/sbin/foo2.sh + test -f $(prefix)/libexec/bar1 + test -x $(prefix)/libexec/bar1 + test -f $(prefix)/libexec/bar2 + test -x $(prefix)/libexec/bar2 + test -f $(prefix)/bin/quux.pl + test -x $(prefix)/bin/quux.pl These 'test -x' commands fail on MinGW/MSYS because the file system does not actually have execute permission information. Instead, it is emulated by looking at the file, and returning 0 if the file starts with, e.g., a COFF header or with '#!'. (The same heuristic is used when executing a script as well.) You can thus fix this by either creating actual scripts in above rules and the file creation below, or by removing the tests here. I'm not sure which you prefer. Thanks, Ralf +END + +: foo1.sh +: foo2.sh + +$ACLOCAL +$AUTOCONF +$AUTOMAKE + +cwd=`pwd` || Exit 1 +./configure --prefix=$cwd/_inst +$MAKE +$MAKE test1 test2 +$MAKE install +$MAKE installcheck +$MAKE distcheck
Re: [PATCH] Test `$(var:suf=rpl)' expansion in special automake variables.
On Thursday 09 December 2010, Eric Blake wrote: On 12/09/2010 05:46 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: Another testsuite-enhancing patch, based off of maint and intended for master. Tested with Solaris 10 XPG4 make, Solaris 10 CCS make, Solaris 10 dmake, Heirloom make, GNU make from 3.79 up to 3.82, with the Debian ports of NetBSD make and FreeBSD make, with dash 0.5.2, bash 2.0, bash 4.1, pdksh, Solaris 10 /bin/sh and Heirloom shell. I'll wait the customary 72 hours (until sunday evening) before pushing. Can you also test whether $(var:$(var2)=$(var3)) works in all makes? According to Ralf Wildenhues: http://www.mail-archive.com/autom...@gnu.org/msg16318.html even $(var:=$(var2)) does not work portably. I'm now going to check the make implementations I've access to to see if any of them fails with these constructs. I will post the results shortly. That question was raised during today's Austin Group meeting, as part of figuring out how portable recursive variable expansion is in practice. Regards, Stefano
Re: [PATCH] Test `$(var:suf=rpl)' expansion in special automake variables.
On 12/09/2010 05:46 AM, Stefano Lattarini wrote: Another testsuite-enhancing patch, based off of maint and intended for master. Tested with Solaris 10 XPG4 make, Solaris 10 CCS make, Solaris 10 dmake, Heirloom make, GNU make from 3.79 up to 3.82, with the Debian ports of NetBSD make and FreeBSD make, with dash 0.5.2, bash 2.0, bash 4.1, pdksh, Solaris 10 /bin/sh and Heirloom shell. I'll wait the customary 72 hours (until sunday evening) before pushing. Can you also test whether $(var:$(var2)=$(var3)) works in all makes? That question was raised during today's Austin Group meeting, as part of figuring out how portable recursive variable expansion is in practice. -- Eric Blake ebl...@redhat.com+1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
