Re: Conditional tests based on ${MACHINE} and ${MACHINE_ARCH}

[Paul Goyette <paul%whooppee.com@localhost>]

On Sat, 1 Jan 2011, Julio Merino wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Paul Goyette <paul%whooppee.com@localhost> 
> wrote:
> > > There's atf_arch and atf_machine (and these are the opposite of MACHINE
> > > and MACHINE_ARCH for some gnuy reason).  Do the aieeefp tests compile
> > > on vax or do you need some intra-tp ifdef games instead?
> >
> > Ah, ok.  So atf_arch contains ${MACHINE} and atf_machine contains
> > ${MACHINE_ARCH} ?  Kewl.
>
> Yes, they are reversed for some stupid historical reason (autoconf
> internal variables not matching common sense, iirc).  That ought to be
> fixed eventually... let's see if I can do that soon (filed PR
> bin/44305 to track this).
>
> You can define the "require.arch" and "require.machine" properties on
> a test case basis; these contain a whitespace separated list of all
> allowed architectures and machines for a particular test case.
> atf-run will automatically skip these test cases if the host machine
> does not match the requirements.  See atf-test-case(4) for details on
> other require.* properties.

Seems to me it would also be useful to have the inverse tests?

require.not.{arch,machine} could skip the tests if any of the the listed 
entries match?

Seems that it would be much more likely to have one or two "skip test" 
architectures than having a small list of "run test", so maintenance 
would be simpler.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Paul Goyette     | PGP Key fingerprint:     | E-mail addresses:       |
| Customer Service | FA29 0E3B 35AF E8AE 6651 | paul at whooppee.com    |
| Network Engineer | 0786 F758 55DE 53BA 7731 | pgoyette at juniper.net |
| Kernel Developer |                          | pgoyette at netbsd.org  |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------