On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 at 14:29, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Jun 23, 2022, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> > libstdc++: testsuite: conditionalize symlink tests
>
>
> libstdc++: testsuite: conditionalize another symlink test
>
> In the recent patch that introduced NO_SYMLINKS, I missed one of the
>
On Jun 23, 2022, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> libstdc++: testsuite: conditionalize symlink tests
libstdc++: testsuite: conditionalize another symlink test
In the recent patch that introduced NO_SYMLINKS, I missed one of the
testcases that created symlinks.
Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu, also
On Jun 23, 2022, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> *
> testsuite/experimental/filesystem/iterators/recursive_directory_itreator.cc
s/itreator/iterator/ for the checkin, thanks to the ChangeLog checker :-)
--
Alexandre Oliva, happy hackerhttps://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
Free
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 13:36, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Jun 23, 2022, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> > Could this new arg be given a default value, so every caller doesn't
> > have to pass "" to it?
>
> > proc v3_check_preprocessor_condition { name cond {inc ""} } {
>
> Oh, nice, I didn't know
On Jun 23, 2022, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Could this new arg be given a default value, so every caller doesn't
> have to pass "" to it?
> proc v3_check_preprocessor_condition { name cond {inc ""} } {
Oh, nice, I didn't know about this convenient notation for default args
in tcl, and the one I
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 11:53, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Jun 22, 2022, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> > Which tests are failing? I might be able to point you to the cause
> > much faster than you can debug it yourself.
>
> With commit 7e2db5d102dd05ffa9c46b89616f7a700a9889f8 (current
>
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 12:28, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 12:02, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 22, 2022, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> >
> > > OK.
> >
> > > I'd like to clean this up so the tests don't rely on the "internal"
> > > HAVE_SYMLINK macro. We could add
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 12:02, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
>
> On Jun 22, 2022, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> > OK.
>
> > I'd like to clean this up so the tests don't rely on the "internal"
> > HAVE_SYMLINK macro. We could add something like this to
> > testsuite/util/testsuite_fs.h
>
> > #if
On Jun 22, 2022, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> OK.
> I'd like to clean this up so the tests don't rely on the "internal"
> HAVE_SYMLINK macro. We could add something like this to
> testsuite/util/testsuite_fs.h
> #if defined(__MINGW32__) || defined(__MINGW64__) \
> || !defined
On Jun 22, 2022, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> Which tests are failing? I might be able to point you to the cause
> much faster than you can debug it yourself.
With commit 7e2db5d102dd05ffa9c46b89616f7a700a9889f8 (current
refs/users/aoliva/heads/testme) I get:
FAIL:
On Jun 22, 2022, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> P.S. there's a typo in the Subject: "symlnks" not "symlinks". I don't
> know if you intend to use that as the Git commit summary line.
Thanks, I would have, fixed. I ended up introducing the feature
abstraction macros in testsuite_fs.h, so I'll shortly
On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 at 10:25, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 at 07:14, Alexandre Oliva via Libstdc++
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Several filesystem tests expect to be able to create symlinks even
> > when !defined (_GLIBCXX_HAVE_SYMLINK), and fail predictably, reducing
> > the amount of
On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 at 07:14, Alexandre Oliva via Libstdc++
wrote:
>
>
> Several filesystem tests expect to be able to create symlinks even
> when !defined (_GLIBCXX_HAVE_SYMLINK), and fail predictably, reducing
> the amount of testing of other filesystem features.
>
> They are already skipped
Several filesystem tests expect to be able to create symlinks even
when !defined (_GLIBCXX_HAVE_SYMLINK), and fail predictably, reducing
the amount of testing of other filesystem features.
They are already skipped for mingw targets. I've extended the
skipping to other targets in which
14 matches
Mail list logo
