This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH 2/2] [GOLD] Add plugin API for processing plugin-added input files
- From: Cary Coutant <ccoutant at gmail dot com>
- To: Sriraman Tallam <tmsriram at google dot com>
- Cc: Stephen Crane <sjc at immunant dot com>, Binutils <binutils at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 17:51:16 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [GOLD] Add plugin API for processing plugin-added input files
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAB7K5r44EtJiXZOiQzM+qqymKjooOTbyb7gikfOxbk7yoyrywg@mail.gmail.com> <CAAs8HmyFiWr6SKG-p+_zHGVBw7sSAoudO5b0qe_zaVPLK1HGmw@mail.gmail.com> <CAB7K5r4DaPN+bq=evZv5zmiEA3BQ8RCv-8ex6889J-AyNyCxdA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAs8HmxEMuOn=cjKOn_gNRv0ve4yshvt2VwLJAasq7d4fVc0Kg@mail.gmail.com>
>> Honestly, the more I think about it, I think it might just be best to
>> use a single shell script for both tests and not duplicate code. The
>> tests are distinct and use different plugins, but the validation is
>> identical. However, using the same script could make it unclear which
>> test failed when there is a failure. I'm not sure which is more
>> important here.
>
> I would say the latter is more important. Could we not just `source`
> .the other script?
I'm fine with using one script for both tests if that works. Even if
the test suite run shows a single failure, the log should make it
clear what the cause of the failure was.
-cary