Re: New bugs

2001-02-03 Thread Akim Demaille
Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello, Akim! > > > If would be *wonderful* if someone had the courage to convert > > Automake's test suite to Autotest :( > > It would be wonderful if Autotest supported XFAIL in same way. We have > tests that are known to be broken, and tests failing

Re: New bugs

2001-02-02 Thread Pavel Roskin
Hello, Akim! > If would be *wonderful* if someone had the courage to convert > Automake's test suite to Autotest :( It would be wonderful if Autotest supported XFAIL in same way. We have tests that are known to be broken, and tests failing unexpectedly for maintainers. The way Autoconf is handl

Re: New bugs

2001-01-31 Thread Tom Tromey
> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Akim> First I want to write/enhance a test that fails on this. Try `make TESTS=subobj4.test VERBOSE=t check'. That will tell you all about the problem. Tom

Re: New bugs

2001-01-31 Thread Akim Demaille
> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Akim> First I want to write/enhance a test that fails on this. Sorry for being that dumb. I finally understood the problem. Here is what I'm applying: Index: ChangeLog from Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * automake.in (ad

Re: New bugs

2001-01-31 Thread Akim Demaille
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tom> Later we see: Tom> # Generate rule for `.o'. . 's/^\@EXT\@\.o:/' . $obj Tom> . '.o: ' . $source . '/g;' Tom> I think we need to quote $obj and $source here; this was handled Tom> in the old code. I did not change anything

Re: New bugs

2001-01-31 Thread Akim Demaille
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tom> The reason is only historical. Feel free to change it. I'm applying this. Sure, more clarification is needed in this area. I find it especially hard to track failures of substitution since Automake uses @FOO@ just like AC_SUBST :( Can

Re: New bugs

2001-01-30 Thread Tom Tromey
> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Akim> I looked at depend2.am: Akim> [ ... ] Isn't it hideous? Eww. Akim> And I'd like to ask a question: why not using @COMPILE@ instead of Akim> replacing $(@PFX@COMPILE)? It seems cleaner to me, and less Akim> surprising for Sunday h

Re: New bugs

2001-01-30 Thread Akim Demaille
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tom> Akim -- Your recent patches broke a couple of test cases. Tom> I looked at the `subobj4' failure. I think the new code in Tom> add_depend2 is wrong. Tom> First, this is wrong: Tom> . &transform ('$(' . $pfx . 'COMPILE)' =>

Re: New bugs

2001-01-30 Thread Akim Demaille
> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Tom> Akim -- Your recent patches broke a couple of test cases. Arg, thanks, I'll address them!

New bugs

2001-01-29 Thread Tom Tromey
Akim -- Your recent patches broke a couple of test cases. I looked at the `subobj4' failure. I think the new code in add_depend2 is wrong. First, this is wrong: . &transform ('$(' . $pfx . 'COMPILE)' => $rule, &transform puts @...@ around the