Eric Blake wrote:
> On 04/05/2010 03:08 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
>> Jim Meyering wrote:
>>> This could be an argument for wrapping some of the C-only tests in a
>>> simple init.sh-using driver (maybe even automatically). Any test that
>>> creates a temporary file would benefit.
>>
>> Yes, I agree:
On 04/05/2010 03:08 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> This could be an argument for wrapping some of the C-only tests in a
>> simple init.sh-using driver (maybe even automatically). Any test that
>> creates a temporary file would benefit.
>
> Yes, I agree: It would make things simp
Jim Meyering wrote:
> This could be an argument for wrapping some of the C-only tests in a
> simple init.sh-using driver (maybe even automatically). Any test that
> creates a temporary file would benefit.
Yes, I agree: It would make things simpler and more robust if all tests
that require tempora
Bruno Haible wrote:
>> I had already converted tests/test-xstrtol.sh.
>> This continues the process with the other test-xstrto*.sh scripts
>
> What are, in summary, the benefits of init.sh? I'm wondering whether
> we might be putting in features here that are not available tests
> written entirely
Hi Jim,
> I had already converted tests/test-xstrtol.sh.
> This continues the process with the other test-xstrto*.sh scripts
What are, in summary, the benefits of init.sh? I'm wondering whether
we might be putting in features here that are not available tests
written entirely in C.
As far as I c
