rtems_test_end()/TEST_END() issues

Joel Sherrill joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com
Fri May 16 17:48:15 UTC 2014

On 5/16/2014 7:09 AM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> Hello Joel,
> I think this rtems_test_* stuff is a hack.  What we really need in the long run 
> is a proper test framework.
I don't disagree but we have to have confidence in what is done now.

You added rtems_test_end* and the TEST_END() macro. They do not
appear to have been applied to the testsuite consistently.

+ block08 defined its own version of TEST_END() and you missed
correcting that.

+ Some tests directly call rtems_test_end() which seems wrong.

+ Some call rtems_test_endk() directly which may be OK if they
have a good reason not to possibly use printf(). But a TEST_ENDK
would have been more consistent and at least a comment
explaining why it needed to use rtems_test_endk().

> On 2014-05-15 17:53, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>> Hi
>> Some tests call rtems_test_end() directly. I haven't
>> checked all but some just need to change to call
>> TEST_END().
>> But the samples may need to follow their own rules.
>> And the block* tests appear to have their own TEST_END()
>> macro in bdbuf_tests.h.  And it calls rtems_test_end() or
>> rtems_test_endk() directly.
> I converted this mostly using some scripts.  The goal was to use TEST_END() as 
> much as possible.
>> This started with an examination of leon3 test output.
>> At least sp39 can exit with a "END OF" message and
>> a failure message. That needs to be fixed and is pretty
>> easy.
> Yes, tests printing "END OF" in case of a test failure are broken.
>> Any thoughts on all this?

Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available                (256) 722-9985

More information about the devel mailing list