Sune Vuorela:
> On Sunday, February 10, 2019 10:05:00 PM CET you wrote:
>> To fix this in other projects, we would have to patch all uses of __FILE__
>> to something like strip_prefix(PREFIX, __FILE__), pass in PREFIX from the
>
> But why not just record the build directory as part of the environ
On Sunday, February 10, 2019 10:05:00 PM CET you wrote:
> To fix this in other projects, we would have to patch all uses of __FILE__
> to something like strip_prefix(PREFIX, __FILE__), pass in PREFIX from the
But why not just record the build directory as part of the environment that
aren't allo
Sune Vuorela:
> On Sunday, February 10, 2019 8:38:00 PM CET Ximin Luo wrote:
>> Yes, pass the source dir in through the build system "somehow", there are
>> lots of possible ways you can do this, and this is what every other test
>> runner does. A command-line argument or environment variable would
On Sunday, February 10, 2019 8:38:00 PM CET Ximin Luo wrote:
> Yes, pass the source dir in through the build system "somehow", there are
> lots of possible ways you can do this, and this is what every other test
> runner does. A command-line argument or environment variable would be
> simplest.
So
Sune Vuorela:
> [..]
>
> What would you suggest changing the macro to ? I can then try push it
> upstream.
>
>> Lots of other test runners do perfectly well without __FILE__, QT tests are
>> not special.
>
> I haven't yet found a c++ test system that actually has this feature. The
> internet
On Sunday, February 10, 2019 8:17:00 PM CET Ximin Luo wrote:
> Acceptable usecases are those that make fewest assumptions about the
> behaviour of __FILE__, which has never been guaranteed to do what the QT
> test macro assumes it does.
Let's read the docs:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Stand
Sune Vuorela:
> On Sunday, February 10, 2019 8:00:00 PM CET Ximin Luo wrote:
>> i.e. QT tests shouldn't use __FILE__, they should use something else.
>
> What should they use? A custom macro that the build system passes into
> instead?
>
> That's just silly. So what are your actual suggestion t
On Sunday, February 10, 2019 8:00:00 PM CET Ximin Luo wrote:
> i.e. QT tests shouldn't use __FILE__, they should use something else.
What should they use? A custom macro that the build system passes into
instead?
That's just silly. So what are your actual suggestion to find the source tree
fro
Sune Vuorela:
> On Sunday, February 10, 2019 3:08:00 AM CET Ximin Luo wrote:
>> Sune Vuorela:
>>> [..]
>>>
>>> My suggestion is to not change the meaning of __FILE__ and instead fix the
>>> programs that uses __FILE__ for something they shouldn't.
>>
>> You should pass this request to the QT test m
On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 04:41:10PM +0100, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> (Please keep me CC'ed. Not subscribed)
ack.
> If you have magic regexes to auto tag issues, lines matching
> /WARNING: .* testdata .* could not be located!/
> would probably find those where it applies to current test cases, at leas
(Please keep me CC'ed. Not subscribed)
On Sunday, February 10, 2019 4:05:05 PM CET Holger Levsen wrote:
> for now I've just added knotifications to ftbfs_due_to_f-file-prefix-map.
>
> Not sure what else to do about this right now.
If you have magic regexes to auto tag issues, lines matching
/WARN
On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 03:58:15PM +0100, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> On Sunday, February 10, 2019 3:34:27 PM CET Holger Levsen wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 07:54:16PM +0100, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > > (Please keep me CC'ed. Not subscribed)
> > done.
> thanks.
and again :)
> According to debian co
On Sunday, February 10, 2019 3:34:27 PM CET Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 07:54:16PM +0100, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> > (Please keep me CC'ed. Not subscribed)
>
> done.
thanks.
> this is unfortunate to say the least.
>
> we are tracking these problems at
> https://tests.reproducib
Hi Sune,
thanks for reaching out to us!
On Sat, Feb 09, 2019 at 07:54:16PM +0100, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> (Please keep me CC'ed. Not subscribed)
done.
> The latest incarnations of the reproducible build autobuilder setup passes
> some options to gcc to not let __FILE__ actualy be the full file
On Sunday, February 10, 2019 3:08:00 AM CET Ximin Luo wrote:
> Sune Vuorela:
> > [..]
> >
> > My suggestion is to not change the meaning of __FILE__ and instead fix the
> > programs that uses __FILE__ for something they shouldn't.
>
> You should pass this request to the QT test maintainers. This
Sune Vuorela:
> [..]
>
> My suggestion is to not change the meaning of __FILE__ and instead fix the
> programs that uses __FILE__ for something they shouldn't.
>
You should pass this request to the QT test maintainers. This exact issue came
up in december 2017 and they were extremely rude and
(Please keep me CC'ed. Not subscribed)
The latest incarnations of the reproducible build autobuilder setup passes
some options to gcc to not let __FILE__ actualy be the full file path, but some
relative path.
This breaks at least some of my unit tests.
In this case, it is src:kookbook, but th
17 matches
Mail list logo
