Re: RFC: Additional testsuite alternative

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Thu, Sep 26, 2002 at 04:20:52PM -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> Daniel,
> 
> I don't think something like this would be of general use.  The .exp 
> files have the full power of a script language and nothing can beat 
> that.  Compiler tests are pretty much different from debugger tests, 
> because debuggers are interactive beasts.
> 
> But as a special harness to drive C++ tests I think it is a good idea. 
> The majority of tests deal with checking for some formatted output of a 
> C++ construct and maybe the full power of scripting is not needed. 
> Maybe it can even be adapted to other languages where what is being 
> tested is of similar nature. There is a precedent already in that the 
> gdbtk tests use their own spec files (.test).
> 
> Anyway, I suggest that you do not try and make it too general, but just 
> something that is capable of simplifying these types of C++ tests.  Use 
> .exp for the non-trivial tests.

OK... I may just use it for type formatting for now, then.  That's and
simple expression printing is what it is best suited for.

> One more question:  You still need a minimum .exp file, I believe, which 
> is what runtest will find and try to run.  It is also part of what 
> identify tests in the results and so one.

Yeah.  I've been just using the harness as the .exp file; I'll keep it
that way for now unless this is needed somewhere else.

I'll submit the harness in a couple of days then.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer