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
+ 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:
>> Some tests call rtems_test_end() directly. I haven't
>> checked all but some just need to change to call
>> 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
> 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