On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 01:13:59PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 06:11:38PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>>Look, if it's getting complicated and tricky, that argues for a bit of
>>a rethink / redesign, doesn't it?
>
>Yes. I was wondering why we were going down this path when
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 06:11:38PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>Look, if it's getting complicated and tricky, that argues for a bit of
>a rethink / redesign, doesn't it?
Yes. I was wondering why we were going down this path when we've both
noted that maybe it wasn't a good idea.
I would still prefer
Original Message
>From: Max Kaehn
>Sent: 08 June 2005 19:44
> On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 16:51, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> Actually neither is right. The tests are supposed to run to
>> completion, not stop on a failure.
>
> My first cut was this, but it could have led to a tedious
> accumu
On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jun 9 14:54, Max Kaehn wrote:
> > On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 01:53, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > > On Jun 8 11:44, Max Kaehn wrote:
> > > > I wound up using "eval", and was thoroughly perplexed at the way
> > > > that the first "eval" seems to get thro
On Jun 9 14:54, Max Kaehn wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 01:53, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > On Jun 8 11:44, Max Kaehn wrote:
> > > I wound up using "eval", and was thoroughly perplexed at the way
> > > that the first "eval" seems to get thrown away.
> >
> > -v, please.
> >
> > tcsh> sh
> >
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 01:53, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> On Jun 8 11:44, Max Kaehn wrote:
> > I wound up using "eval", and was thoroughly perplexed at the way
> > that the first "eval" seems to get thrown away.
>
> -v, please.
>
> tcsh> sh
> $ eval date
> Thu Jun 9 10:52:23 WEDT 2005
> $
On Jun 8 11:44, Max Kaehn wrote:
> I wound up using "eval", and was thoroughly perplexed at the way
> that the first "eval" seems to get thrown away.
-v, please.
tcsh> sh
$ eval date
Thu Jun 9 10:52:23 WEDT 2005
$
Corinna
--
Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regard
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 16:51, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> Actually neither is right. The tests are supposed to run to
> completion, not stop on a failure.
My first cut was this, but it could have led to a tedious
accumulation of if/then/else/if/then/else:
Index: winsup/testsuite/Makefile.in
=
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 05:10:16PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
>Original Message
>>From: Christopher Faylor
>>Sent: 07 June 2005 00:52
>>On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:11:32PM -0700, Max Kaehn wrote:
>>>On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 16:07, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
I take it you meant
- $
Original Message
>From: Christopher Faylor
>Sent: 07 June 2005 00:52
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:11:32PM -0700, Max Kaehn wrote:
>> On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 16:07, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>>> I take it you meant
>>>
>>> - $(RUNTEST) --tool winsup $(RUNTESTFLAGS) ;\
>>> + $(RUNT
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 05:56:48PM -0700, Max Kaehn wrote:
>On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 14:33, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> So, I checked in the above and, after changing cygload.exp so that it
>> compiles cygload.cc rather than cygload.cpp, I found a more serious
>> error. I've attached the cygload.log
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 14:33, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> So, I checked in the above and, after changing cygload.exp so that it
> compiles cygload.cc rather than cygload.cpp, I found a more serious
> error. I've attached the cygload.log file. It doesn't look pretty,
> unfortunately. You might not
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 04:11:32PM -0700, Max Kaehn wrote:
>On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 16:07, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>> I take it you meant
>>
>> - $(RUNTEST) --tool winsup $(RUNTESTFLAGS) ;\
>> + $(RUNTEST) --tool winsup $(RUNTESTFLAGS) &&\
>
>Oh, right, this is the world of shell script
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 16:07, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> I take it you meant
>
> - $(RUNTEST) --tool winsup $(RUNTESTFLAGS) ;\
> + $(RUNTEST) --tool winsup $(RUNTESTFLAGS) &&\
Oh, right, this is the world of shell scripts, not C. Thanks for
catching that.
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Max Kaehn wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 14:33, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > There were still some braces at the end of the line in cygload.h so I
> > changed those. I also changed the ChangeLog entry "now tests cygload"
> > to "Test cygload". See http://cygwin.com/contrib.h
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 14:33, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> There were still some braces at the end of the line in cygload.h so I
> changed those. I also changed the ChangeLog entry "now tests cygload"
> to "Test cygload". See http://cygwin.com/contrib.html for some common
> mistakes in ChangeLog en
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 02:01:44PM -0700, Max Kaehn wrote:
>This patch contains a revised version of the "cygload" test utility,
>this time with even better adherence to cygwin naming and indentation.
>Igor, thanks for pointing me at "indent"-- it also pointed out
>that I was forgetting to put spac
This patch contains a revised version of the "cygload" test utility,
this time with even better adherence to cygwin naming and indentation.
Igor, thanks for pointing me at "indent"-- it also pointed out
that I was forgetting to put spaces in front of the parameter
lists for my function calls.
I'm
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:03:07PM -0700, Max Kaehn wrote:
>This patch contains a revised version of the "cygload" test utility,
>this time with better adherence to cygwin naming and indentation.
Sorry, Max, but this is still using K&R indentation. Cygwin uses:
if (x)
{
y;
}
not
This patch contains a revised version of the "cygload" test utility,
this time with better adherence to cygwin naming and indentation.
---
ChangeLog for winsup/testsuite:
2005-05-27 Max Kaehn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* Makefile: now tests cygload.
* cygload: New directory.
*
20 matches
Mail list logo
