Re: [pdf-devel] Compiling for windows

[Aleksander Morgado]

> It is easy to implement the writting of the `ut.log' logfile? It is
> important if we want to automatically run the testsuite and process
> the output.

Yes, shouldn't be a problem.

>    Here's a sample output obtained with No-Check:
>
>    [No-Check] Running all suites...
>    [No-Check] Running suite 'alloc'...
>    [No-Check] Running suite 'list'...
>    [No-Check] Running test case 'pdf_list_create'...
>      |--> [No-Check] Running test 'pdf_list_create_001'...
>      |--> [No-Check] Running test 'pdf_list_create_002'...
>      |--> [No-Check] Running test 'pdf_list_create_003'...
>    [No-Check] Running test case 'pdf_list_size'...
>      |--> [No-Check] Running test 'pdf_list_size_001'...
>    [No-Check] Running test case 'pdf_list_add_first'...
>      |--> [No-Check] Running test 'pdf_list_add_first_001'...
>            |--> [No-Check] base/list/pdf-list-add-first.c:53: 'Failure
>    'pdf_list_size(list) != 1' occured
>            |--> [No-Check] base/list/pdf-list-add-first.c:56: 'Failure
>    'pdf_list_size(list) != 2' occured
>      |--> [No-Check] Running test 'pdf_list_add_first_002'...
>    [No-Check] Running test case 'pdf_list_add_at'...
>      |--> [No-Check] Running test 'pdf_list_add_at_001'...
>      |--> [No-Check] Running test 'pdf_list_add_at_002'...
>    [No-Check] Running test case 'pdf_list_add_last'...
>      |--> [No-Check] Running test 'pdf_list_add_last_001'...
>
> Would be good to use the same output format than check here.

Hmmm... I will need to investigate a little bit, but I guess shouldn't 
be a problem.

>    One limitation is that due to the fact that no fork is done when
>    running the tests, there is no way to recover from a segfault in
>    the test (Check handles this situation correctly and sets the test
>    as 'Error').
>
> Well, that limitation is quite reasonable. We _dont_ want to write a
> check replacement for windows :)

AFAIK, Check developers are in fact really interested in a full-featured 
windows port. They might have one someday.

>    #ifdef HAVE_NOCHECK
>    #include <nocheck.h>
>    #else /* If not... use standard Check Framework */
>    #include <check.h>
>    #endif
>
> I would put the nocheck code in torture/nocheck/ and change the name
> of the header file to `check.h'. In that way you can select which
> header is used in Makefile.am using the AM_CPPFLAGS variable. The
> little library in torture/nocheck could compile to a static archive
> libnocheck.a 
>
> What do you think?

Ok, no problem.

>    > /* The stream module suite crashes... and if the No-Check built-in utility 
> is
>    >  *  used, it prevents from running further suites (no fork is done for each
>    >  *  test, so it is disabled until corrected */
>
> Please insert a new task in the flyspray installation for fix it and
> put it in the WAITING state (there is a change in the stm design that
> need the filesystem module implementation). In that way we wont forget
> this issue :)

Ok.


>    < #include <check.h>
>    ---
>    > #include <runtests.h>
>
> Ah ok :)

Yes, this was my proposal. Then in runtests.h it was decided which 
header to include.

> As I noted before I would prefer to simply include <check.h> and do
> the trick with the preprocessor options. I dont like unit tests to
> have a dependency in a specific driver (such as runtests.[ch]).

Ok.

I will make all these changes and send you the diff again for review.

-Aleksander