Burt,
On 08/23/2017 08:31 PM, Burt Silverman wrote:
Dave Wallace wrote:
IMO, "in-tree" .vs. "out-of-tree" really boils down to decoupling
the app's "Makefile.am" the rest of the vpp autotools
structure/configuration. For example, I ran into the same issue
with .../vppsb/vcl-ldp
Dave Wallace wrote:
IMO, "in-tree" .vs. "out-of-tree" really boils down to decoupling the app's
"Makefile.am" the rest of the vpp autotools structure/configuration. For
example, I ran into the same issue with .../vppsb/vcl-ldpreload/src/Makefile.am
(which is literally 'out-of-tree') in the case w
>> Feel free to nix this patch, of course, but I'm not really sure where
>> or how to get an equivalent test into the ..extras/apps approach yet.
>
> Cool. Give me a few days, and I'll revise this patch to consolidate the
> test apps and integrate the 'make test-c-build' validation into 'make
> ve
On 08/23/2017 05:45 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Dave Wallace wrote:
IMO, "in-tree" .vs. "out-of-tree" really boils down to decoupling the app's
"Makefile.am" the rest of the vpp autotools structure/configuration. For
example, I ran into the same issue with
.../vpps
Florin,
That makes sense to me. Unless someone has a better suggestion, I'd
just shorten that to "extras/apps/test".
Any other comments/suggestions?
Thanks,
-daw-
On 08/23/2017 05:41 PM, Florin Coras wrote:
Dave,
Agreed, modulo one comment: I’d like the folder to be named something
more
> On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Dave Wallace wrote:
>
> IMO, "in-tree" .vs. "out-of-tree" really boils down to decoupling the app's
> "Makefile.am" the rest of the vpp autotools structure/configuration. For
> example, I ran into the same issue with
> .../vppsb/vcl-ldpreload/src/Makefile.am (w
Dave,
Agreed, modulo one comment: I’d like the folder to be named something more
specific than “extras/apps”. We can keep that for genuine application, but for
any apps meant for testing, I’d go with “extras/apps/testing” or something
along those lines.
Cheers,
Florin
> On Aug 23, 2017, at
Jon,
On 08/23/2017 03:41 PM, Jon Loeliger wrote:
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Dave Wallace wrote:
Jon,
I think this is an excellent idea as your example is clearly a test escape
that we should be detecting in our CI infra.
However, I'm not sure if "make test" is the appropriate place to
On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Dave Wallace wrote:
> Jon,
>
> I think this is an excellent idea as your example is clearly a test escape
> that we should be detecting in our CI infra.
>
> However, I'm not sure if "make test" is the appropriate place to add this
> check. IMHO, this would be bett
Jon,
I think this is an excellent idea as your example is clearly a test
escape that we should be detecting in our CI infra.
However, I'm not sure if "make test" is the appropriate place to add
this check. IMHO, this would be better suited to be invoked under "make
verify" (like the clang t
Damjan and others,
Over the past 6 or 8 months, we have had several build failures
due to missing include files in the installation of built RPMs.
It is a really simple C test to identify the failure. Here is an
almost minimal example:
#include
#include
#include
#include
11 matches
Mail list logo
