On Nov 04, 2002 16:44 -0800, Geoff Gustafson wrote:
> Another problem is the overhead of the TET framework. One of the goals of
> this the new test suite is to have test cases which are utterly minimal.
> So far, each test case has its own main() function and a bare minimum of
> surrounding code. The idea is that when a bug is found, this one .c file
> can be sent to the appropriate developer, and without any learning curve,
> they have the ability to find their bug. I don't think LKML wants to see
> TET code posted here. :)
Having suffered through using the TET framework for the Open Group POSIX
test suite, I would agree that using TET sucks. The code is so convoluted
as to be useless, and it is nearly impossible to see from the output what
it is actually doing.
I agree that having a simple C or shell or perl script which is the entire
test, and the rest of the framework is external to it is very desirable.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger \ "If a man ate a pound of pasta and a pound of antipasto,
\ would they cancel out, leaving him still hungry?"
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/ -- Dogbert
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 07 2002 - 22:00:35 EST