Re: Testing Newlib

[Eric Blake <eblake at redhat dot com>]

On 06/07/2011 04:32 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 07, 2011 18:23:49 Eric Blake wrote:
>> On 06/07/2011 12:07 PM, Joel Sherrill wrote:
>>> I recall in the past people mentioning using glibc's
>>> test suite to test newlib.  Are there any instructions
>>> out there for doing this?
>>>
>>> Any other freely available test suites worth running?
>>
>> gnulib has a constantly-growing set of test suites; in fact, it was
>> while writing a gnulib test for perror that I posted today's patch for
>> fixing newlib's bug with handling fputc(fopen(,"r")).
> 
> but are they easy to run against arbitrary toolchains and not just the gnulib 
> code itself ?  otherwise this is the same boat as the glibc code.

Hopefully a bit easier.  This is untested, but it's pretty close to what
I've been doing myself, with a gnulib.git checkout:

./gnulib-tool --with-tests --create-testdir --dir=testdir0 FUNC
cd testdir0
make check
edit gltests/test-FUNC.c to comment out the '#include <config.h>' line
make clean
make check

The first 'make check' tests the gnulib replacement code, which should
pass even if newlib is buggy; the second, if test-FUNC compiles, is
using purely native functions.  If the native functions work as mandated
by POSIX, then the contents of <config.h> should not matter for that
particular FUNC (the point of <config.h> is to allow compilation of
gnulib modules to know which bugs have to be worked around, but if there
are no bugs... :).

And you can feel free to ask on bug-gnulib if you get stuck on a
compilation issue with one of those tests.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake@redhat.com    +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature