From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28900 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2011 17:20:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 28885 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Mar 2011 17:20:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 01 Mar 2011 17:20:06 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p21HJpo6003574 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:19:52 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p21HJpWO030316; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:19:51 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p21HJohH018223; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 12:19:50 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 2C1213785EB; Tue, 1 Mar 2011 10:19:50 -0700 (MST) From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: remove a bunch of testsuite/**/configure scripts References: <20110301045303.GI30306@adacore.com> Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 17:20:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20110301045303.GI30306@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Tue, 1 Mar 2011 08:53:03 +0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00034.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: Joel> I'm in favor of at least removing the configure script. For Joel> the Makefiles (would we keep the master one in gdb/testsuite/?, Either way is ok. I think there is probably enough code in testsuite/Makefile.in to warrant keeping it around. Ordinarily I think it is better, for parallelism, to have as few Makefiles as possible, but that doesn't seem like a real consideration in this case. Joel> I'd say yes, at least as a first step), it's a tougher one. I think Joel> it depends on what the consequences in terms of funtionality would Joel> be. I don't mind losing "make clean" capability in the testsuite Joel> area, but that might be problems for those who build in-tree Joel> (sacrilege! :-). All these Makefiles exist only for "make clean". Until Michael's patch last week, they didn't even successfully do that :-) In fact, depending on the target, that may still be the case; I don't know for certain but I suspect so. I wonder whether we could arrange to invoke runtest in a subdirectory. Then "make clean" would be "rm -rf testdir". This would break "clean" for those people invoking runtest by hand though. Personally I never run "make clean" for the testsuite and I really couldn't care less if it stopped working. Is there anybody who does care and rely on this? If you do use it -- why? I would rather not go through a bunch of gyrations for a feature that no developer uses. Tom