Dne 02. 09. 20 v 12:21 Thomas Huth napsal(a):
> On 02/09/2020 10.37, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 02/09/20 10:19, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 04:00:46AM -0400, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
check-block has its own test harness, unlike every other test. If
we capture its ou
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> check-block has its own test harness, unlike every other test. If
> we capture its output, as is in general nicer to do without V=1,
> there will be no sign of progress. So for lack of a better option
> just move the invocation of the test back to Makefile rules.
>
> A
On 02/09/2020 10.37, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 02/09/20 10:19, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 04:00:46AM -0400, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> check-block has its own test harness, unlike every other test. If
>>> we capture its output, as is in general nicer to do without V=1,
>>>
On 02/09/20 10:19, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 04:00:46AM -0400, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> check-block has its own test harness, unlike every other test. If
>> we capture its output, as is in general nicer to do without V=1,
>> there will be no sign of progress. So for lack
On Wed, Sep 02, 2020 at 04:00:46AM -0400, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> check-block has its own test harness, unlike every other test. If
> we capture its output, as is in general nicer to do without V=1,
> there will be no sign of progress. So for lack of a better option
> just move the invocation of t
check-block has its own test harness, unlike every other test. If
we capture its output, as is in general nicer to do without V=1,
there will be no sign of progress. So for lack of a better option
just move the invocation of the test back to Makefile rules.
As a side effect, this will also fix "