Re: [PATCH] psx13: Reworked and relicensed

ts saying >>> >>> "Testing .Success"? >>> >>> >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Gedare Bloom >>> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 8:45 AM >>> To: Ryan Long >>> Cc: devel@rtems.org >&g

Re: [PATCH] psx13: Reworked and relicensed

s saying >> >> "Testing .Success"? >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Gedare Bloom >> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 8:45 AM >> To: Ryan Long >> Cc: devel@rtems.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] psx13: Reworked

Re: [PATCH] psx13: Reworked and relicensed

, then it can be removed in a follow up patch. > For the printf's in test_main(), I should take out all of the print > statements saying > > "Testing .Success"? > > > > -Original Message- > From: Gedare Bloom > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 8:45 AM >

Re: [PATCH] psx13: Reworked and relicensed

s since only rtems_test_assert() will print anything there. > > > -Original Message- > From: Gedare Bloom > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 8:45 AM > To: Ryan Long > Cc: devel@rtems.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] psx13: Reworked and relicensed > > See below for co

RE: [PATCH] psx13: Reworked and relicensed

Gedare Bloom Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 8:45 AM To: Ryan Long Cc: devel@rtems.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] psx13: Reworked and relicensed See below for comments. This test suite might be a good candidate for conversion to T_TEST_CASE framework. At any rate, this refactor is a marked improvement. O

Re: [PATCH] psx13: Reworked and relicensed

; > > From: Joel Sherrill > > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 9:21 AM > > To: Sebastian Huber > > Cc: Gedare Bloom ; Ryan Long ; > rtems-de...@rtems.org > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] psx13: Reworked and relicensed > > > > > > > > While you ar

Re: [PATCH] psx13: Reworked and relicensed

On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 9:44 AM Ryan Long wrote: > > What other file? > ls rtems/testsuites/psxtests/psx13 > > > From: Joel Sherrill > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 9:21 AM > To: Sebastian Huber > Cc: Gedare Bloom ; Ryan Long ; > rtems-de...@rtems.org > Sub

RE: [PATCH] psx13: Reworked and relicensed

What other file? From: Joel Sherrill Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2021 9:21 AM To: Sebastian Huber Cc: Gedare Bloom ; Ryan Long ; rtems-de...@rtems.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] psx13: Reworked and relicensed While you are updating the license on the OAR authored code, you should pick up the other

Re: [PATCH] psx13: Reworked and relicensed

On Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 9:23 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 22/04/2021 16:21, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > > While you are updating the license on the OAR authored code, you > > should pick up the other file in this directory. > Sorry, what do you mean? > There is

Re: [PATCH] psx13: Reworked and relicensed

On 22/04/2021 16:21, Joel Sherrill wrote: While you are updating the license on the OAR authored code, you should pick up the other file in this directory. Sorry, what do you mean? -- embedded brains GmbH Herr Sebastian HUBER Dornierstr. 4 82178 Puchheim Germany email:

Re: [PATCH] psx13: Reworked and relicensed

While you are updating the license on the OAR authored code, you should pick up the other file in this directory. On Thu, Apr 22, 2021, 9:09 AM Sebastian Huber < sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > On 22/04/2021 15:44, Gedare Bloom wrote: > > >> + rv = close( fd1 ); > >> +

Re: [PATCH] psx13: Reworked and relicensed

On 22/04/2021 15:44, Gedare Bloom wrote: + rv = close( fd1 ); + rtems_test_assert( rv == 0 ); Just curious, why be inconsistent how you check for the return from close? Above using != EOF, here using == 0. It doesn't matter greatly. Different APIs are tested. One uses 0, the other uses

Re: [PATCH] psx13: Reworked and relicensed

See below for comments. This test suite might be a good candidate for conversion to T_TEST_CASE framework. At any rate, this refactor is a marked improvement. On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 2:57 PM Ryan Long wrote: > > Changed the way the tests were structured, added rtems_test_assert()'s, > updated