From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11318 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2010 22:32:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 11310 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Apr 2010 22:32:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,SARE_MSGID_LONG45,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (74.125.121.35) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 22:32:27 +0000 Received: from kpbe17.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe17.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.81]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o3LMWNMI013067 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:32:24 +0200 Received: from pzk6 (pzk6.prod.google.com [10.243.19.134]) by kpbe17.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o3LMWMmL030202 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:32:22 -0700 Received: by pzk6 with SMTP id 6so2652376pzk.1 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:32:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.141.91.13 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:32:22 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1271884330-28781-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> References: <1271884330-28781-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 22:32:00 -0000 Received: by 10.140.83.9 with SMTP id g9mr2448665rvb.6.1271889142204; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:32:22 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] sim: unify target->subdir handling for default tests From: Doug Evans To: Mike Frysinger Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2010-04/txt/msg00713.txt.bz2 On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > The testsuite subdir has a note about unifying the target->subdir logic, > so do just that. =A0The end goal here is to have `make check` work out of > the box without having to delve into dejagnu internals. > > The target-specific logic is split out of the top level configure.ac file > and into a dedicated configure.tgt similar to other subprojects (gdb and > ld and etc...) with the difference that this file has to be included at > the m4 level instead of the shell level. =A0This is necessary only because > autoconf requires AC_CONFIG_SUBDIRS be given a string literal and not a > variable value. > > Then the toplevel and the testsuite configure files pull this in, the sim > subdir gets expanded into testsuite/site.exp, and the default sim run code > uses this info to set the sim path to the local compiled run file if it > hasn't already been specified. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger > > sim/: > 2010-04-21 =A0Mike Frysinger =A0 > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* configure.ac: Target logic moved out to and included fro= m ... > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* configure.tgt: ... this new file. > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* configure: Regenerated. > > sim/testsuite/: > 2010-04-21 =A0Mike Frysinger =A0 > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* Makefile.in (arch): Set to @sim_arch@. > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* configure.ac: Delete arch logic and include ../configure= .tgt. > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* configure: Regenerated. > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0* lib/sim-defs.exp (sim_run): Default sim to ../arch/run. > --- > =A0sim/configure.ac =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 | =A0120 +++-------------= ------------------------ > =A0sim/configure.tgt =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0| =A0114 ++++++++++++++++= ++++++++++++++++++++++ > =A0sim/testsuite/Makefile.in =A0 =A0 =A0| =A0 =A02 +- > =A0sim/testsuite/configure.ac =A0 =A0 | =A0 =A08 +-- > =A0sim/testsuite/lib/sim-defs.exp | =A0 =A09 +++ > =A05 files changed, 133 insertions(+), 120 deletions(-) > =A0create mode 100644 sim/configure.tgt > This is ok with me with a few qualifications. I'd leave it for a few days to see if anyone else wants to comment. I'd add a comment to configure.tgt saying that it's intended to be m4-inclu= ded. [It's kinda clear since a few lines in there's an m4 command :-), but an explicit comment would help, I think.] How have you tested it? [I'd test it on at least two targets, if not more.]