Re: [PATCH] Add tests for cwrapper with -std=c89 and -std=c99

2009-01-23 Thread Charles Wilson
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
 
 Please go ahead and push with these changes.

Pushed.

--
Chuck





[PATCH] Add tests for cwrapper with -std=c89 and -std=c99

2009-01-22 Thread Charles Wilson
* tests/cwrapper.at: New file.
* Makefile.am: Add tests/cwrapper.at.
---
Ok to push?

 Makefile.am   |1 +
 tests/cwrapper.at |   81 +
 2 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 tests/cwrapper.at

diff --git a/Makefile.am b/Makefile.am
index 790..7a61846 100644
--- a/Makefile.am
+++ b/Makefile.am
@@ -467,6 +467,7 @@ TESTSUITE_AT= tests/testsuite.at \
  tests/indirect_deps.at \
  tests/archive-in-archive.at \
  tests/execute-mode.at \
+ tests/cwrapper.at \
  tests/infer-tag.at \
  tests/localization.at \
  tests/install.at \
diff --git a/tests/cwrapper.at b/tests/cwrapper.at
new file mode 100644
index 000..2cae611
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tests/cwrapper.at
@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+# cwrapper.at -- test compliance with c89 standard -*- Autotest -*-
+
+#   Copyright (C) 2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+#   Written by Charles Wilson, 2009
+#
+#   This file is part of GNU Libtool.
+#
+# GNU Libtool is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
+# modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
+# published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of
+# the License, or (at your option) any later version.
+#
+# GNU Libtool is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+# GNU General Public License for more details.
+#
+# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+# along with GNU Libtool; see the file COPYING.  If not, a copy
+# can be downloaded from  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html,
+# or obtained by writing to the Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
+# 51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA.
+
+
+AT_SETUP([wrapper for uninstalled dynamically linked executables - C])
+AT_KEYWORDS([libtool])
+
+# make sure existing libtool is configured for shared libraries
+AT_CHECK([$LIBTOOL --features | grep 'disable shared libraries'  exit 77],
+[1], [ignore])
+
+AT_DATA([trivial.c],
+[[
+int main (void)
+{
+  return 0;
+}
+]])
+AT_DATA([liba.c],
+[[int liba_func1 (int arg)
+{
+  return arg + 1;
+}
+]])
+AT_DATA([usea.c],
+[[extern int liba_func1 (int arg);
+int main (void)
+{
+  int a = 2;
+  int b = liba_func1 (a);
+  if (b == 3) return 0;
+  return 1;
+}
+]])
+
+orig_CFLAGS=$CFLAGS
+orig_LIBTOOL=$LIBTOOL
+for restrictive_flags in '-std=c89 -Werror' '-std=c99 -Werror'; do
+  CFLAGS=$orig_CFLAGS $restrictive_flags
+  sed s/LTCFAGS=.*/' $restrictive_flags'/  $orig_LIBTOOL  ./libtool
+  LIBTOOL=./libtool
+
+  # make sure $restrictive_flags do not cause a failure
+  # themselves (e.g. because a non-gcc compiler doesn't them)
+  $LIBTOOL --mode=compile $CC $CPPFLAGS $CFLAGS -c trivial.c || continue
+
+  AT_CHECK([$LIBTOOL --mode=compile $CC $CPPFLAGS $CFLAGS -c liba.c],
+   [], [ignore], [ignore])
+  AT_CHECK([$LIBTOOL --mode=link $CC $CFLAGS $LDFLAGS -version-info=0.0.0 
-no-undefined -o liba.la -rpath /foo liba.lo],
+   [], [ignore], [ignore])
+  AT_CHECK([test -f liba.la])
+
+  AT_CHECK([$CC $CPPFLAGS $CFLAGS -c usea.c],
+   [], [ignore], [ignore])
+  AT_CHECK([$LIBTOOL --mode=link $CC $CFLAGS $LDFLAGS -o usea$EXEEXT 
usea.$OBJEXT liba.la],
+   [], [ignore], [ignore])
+  LT_AT_EXEC_CHECK([./usea], [0], [ignore], [ignore], [])
+done
+
+AT_CLEANUP
+
-- 
1.6.0.4





Re: [PATCH] Add tests for cwrapper with -std=c89 and -std=c99

2009-01-22 Thread Charles Wilson
Charles Wilson wrote:

 +  sed s/LTCFAGS=.*/' $restrictive_flags'/  $orig_LIBTOOL  ./libtool

I've already fixed this typo s/LTCFAGS/LTCFLAGS/

--
Chuck




Re: [PATCH] Add tests for cwrapper with -std=c89 and -std=c99

2009-01-22 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Charles Wilson wrote on Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 12:36:57AM CET:
 * tests/cwrapper.at: New file.
 * Makefile.am: Add tests/cwrapper.at.
 ---
 Ok to push?

Yes, with really minor nits:

 --- /dev/null
 +++ b/tests/cwrapper.at
 @@ -0,0 +1,81 @@

 +AT_SETUP([wrapper for uninstalled dynamically linked executables - C])

This message is a bit long, and thus will look ugly in the test output.
How about just
  cwrapper for uninstalled executables

so that we can use cwrapper as keyword for choosing this test;
it should be specific enough to tell users what it is about (and
it doesn't matter here whether this wrapper is for some form of
linking only).

 +orig_CFLAGS=$CFLAGS
 +orig_LIBTOOL=$LIBTOOL
 +for restrictive_flags in '-std=c89 -Werror' '-std=c99 -Werror'; do
 +  CFLAGS=$orig_CFLAGS $restrictive_flags
 +  sed s/LTCFAGS=.*/' $restrictive_flags'/  $orig_LIBTOOL  ./libtool
 +  LIBTOOL=./libtool
 +
 +  # make sure $restrictive_flags do not cause a failure
 +  # themselves (e.g. because a non-gcc compiler doesn't them)

s/them)/understand /

 +  $LIBTOOL --mode=compile $CC $CPPFLAGS $CFLAGS -c trivial.c || continue

Please go ahead and push with these changes.

Thank you,
Ralf