Sounds like a cool setup! I wonder if the CMake folks are doing something similar, or if doing stuff like this easily is an argument in favor of general purposes build systems like make, tup...
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Ben Boeckel <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 23:26:26 +1000, Neil Shepperd wrote: > > They're having the tests run by Tup as part of the build process. It > > makes sense to me, since it means that tests that ran successfully and > > are unaffected by the new modifications won't be re-run (although > > there are downsides to this, such as the loss of that warm fuzzy > > feeling you get from seeing 20 green "test passed" messages!). > > It makes sense to *depend* on the link step, but it doesn't make sense > to do: > > ln -o exe && ./exe > > *as* your link step (which, IIRC, is what was posted before). > > > Execution is tied to linking in that tup obviously re-runs the > > executable if it has been modified (ie. re-linked). > > --Ben > > -- > -- > tup-users mailing list > email: [email protected] > unsubscribe: [email protected] > options: http://groups.google.com/group/tup-users?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "tup-users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- tup-users mailing list email: [email protected] unsubscribe: [email protected] options: http://groups.google.com/group/tup-users?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tup-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
