[RFA/testsuite/ada] re-implement make clean & distclean

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[RFA/testsuite/ada] re-implement make clean & distclean

Joel Brobecker
Hello,

The current implementation for make clean requires us that we update
the EXECUTABLES list each time we add a new testcase. It was a vague
copy/paste of some code I probably found in one of the nearby Makefiles...
It was causing me a bit of grief that certain files would not be deleted
when I did a "make clean", in particular the executables produced by
gnatmake. I decided to replace this with an approach we have been using
with great success in our own testsuite for years...

2006-12-31  Joel Brobecker  <[hidden email]>

        * gdb.ada/Makefile.in (EXECUTABLES): Delete.
        (MISCELLANEOUS): Delete.
        (clean): Re-implement.
        (mostlyclean): Likewise.

Tested on my x86-linux laptop.  Any objection?

Thank you,
--
Joel

gdb.ada.clean.dif (1K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RFA/testsuite/ada] re-implement make clean & distclean

Mark Kettenis
> Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 14:07:55 +0400
> From: Joel Brobecker <[hidden email]>
>
> Hello,
>
> The current implementation for make clean requires us that we update
> the EXECUTABLES list each time we add a new testcase. It was a vague
> copy/paste of some code I probably found in one of the nearby Makefiles...
> It was causing me a bit of grief that certain files would not be deleted
> when I did a "make clean", in particular the executables produced by
> gnatmake. I decided to replace this with an approach we have been using
> with great success in our own testsuite for years...
>
> 2006-12-31  Joel Brobecker  <[hidden email]>
>
>         * gdb.ada/Makefile.in (EXECUTABLES): Delete.
>         (MISCELLANEOUS): Delete.
>         (clean): Re-implement.
>         (mostlyclean): Likewise.
>
> Tested on my x86-linux laptop.  Any objection?

Hmm, seems a bit scary to me.  If I read this correctly, a file named
NOTES would be wiped isn't it?  I'm using a seperate object dir, so I
probably won't care, but others might...
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RFA/testsuite/ada] re-implement make clean & distclean

Joel Brobecker
> > 2006-12-31  Joel Brobecker  <[hidden email]>
> >
> >         * gdb.ada/Makefile.in (EXECUTABLES): Delete.
> >         (MISCELLANEOUS): Delete.
> >         (clean): Re-implement.
> >         (mostlyclean): Likewise.
> >
> > Tested on my x86-linux laptop.  Any objection?
>
> Hmm, seems a bit scary to me.  If I read this correctly, a file named
> NOTES would be wiped isn't it?  I'm using a seperate object dir, so I
> probably won't care, but others might...

The thing is that we very rarely add files other than the exp files
and the source code. If we add a file called NOTES in gdb.ada, then
we can adjust the exclusion list in the find command. Doing it the
other way around is a lot more work.

--
Joel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RFA/testsuite/ada] re-implement make clean & distclean

Jim Blandy

Joel Brobecker <[hidden email]> writes:

>> > 2006-12-31  Joel Brobecker  <[hidden email]>
>> >
>> >         * gdb.ada/Makefile.in (EXECUTABLES): Delete.
>> >         (MISCELLANEOUS): Delete.
>> >         (clean): Re-implement.
>> >         (mostlyclean): Likewise.
>> >
>> > Tested on my x86-linux laptop.  Any objection?
>>
>> Hmm, seems a bit scary to me.  If I read this correctly, a file named
>> NOTES would be wiped isn't it?  I'm using a seperate object dir, so I
>> probably won't care, but others might...
>
> The thing is that we very rarely add files other than the exp files
> and the source code. If we add a file called NOTES in gdb.ada, then
> we can adjust the exclusion list in the find command. Doing it the
> other way around is a lot more work.

Mistakes in Joel's suggested new procedure would be caught by CVS ---
another point in its favor.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RFA/testsuite/ada] re-implement make clean & distclean

Daniel Jacobowitz-2
In reply to this post by Joel Brobecker
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 06:32:37PM +0400, Joel Brobecker wrote:

> > > 2006-12-31  Joel Brobecker  <[hidden email]>
> > >
> > >         * gdb.ada/Makefile.in (EXECUTABLES): Delete.
> > >         (MISCELLANEOUS): Delete.
> > >         (clean): Re-implement.
> > >         (mostlyclean): Likewise.
> > >
> > > Tested on my x86-linux laptop.  Any objection?
> >
> > Hmm, seems a bit scary to me.  If I read this correctly, a file named
> > NOTES would be wiped isn't it?  I'm using a seperate object dir, so I
> > probably won't care, but others might...
>
> The thing is that we very rarely add files other than the exp files
> and the source code. If we add a file called NOTES in gdb.ada, then
> we can adjust the exclusion list in the find command. Doing it the
> other way around is a lot more work.

Except that, like Mark implies, I tend to keep my notes in my working
directory.  If I'm debugging a bunch of testcases and I needed to keep
notes about what was going on, I'd be quite surprised if make clean
deleted my notes!

I don't object too strongly, though, if others like this approach.
I wouldn't put them in that directory anyway, just in gdb/testsuite/.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RFA/testsuite/ada] re-implement make clean & distclean

Joel Brobecker
> Except that, like Mark implies, I tend to keep my notes in my working
> directory.  If I'm debugging a bunch of testcases and I needed to keep
> notes about what was going on, I'd be quite surprised if make clean
> deleted my notes!

Hum, I hadn't thought about that. I keep my own notes in one central
directory - mostly to avoid losing them more than anything, it's hard
to keep track of what is in my hard drive sometimes...

I don't know how else to solve our issue. Maintaining a list of files
to delete is a royal pain :-(.

> I don't object too strongly, though, if others like this approach.
> I wouldn't put them in that directory anyway, just in gdb/testsuite/.

Fortunately, I only suggest this for gdb.ada, so very few people would
be impacted. Perhaps the lack of consistency is a bad thing?

--
Joel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RFA/testsuite/ada] re-implement make clean & distclean

Daniel Jacobowitz-2
On Sun, Dec 31, 2006 at 07:27:43PM +0400, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > I don't object too strongly, though, if others like this approach.
> > I wouldn't put them in that directory anyway, just in gdb/testsuite/.
>
> Fortunately, I only suggest this for gdb.ada, so very few people would
> be impacted. Perhaps the lack of consistency is a bad thing?

We have the same problem all over the testsuite, really - no one keeps
the makefiles up to date any more.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [RFA/testsuite/ada] re-implement make clean & distclean

Joel Brobecker
> > Fortunately, I only suggest this for gdb.ada, so very few people would
> > be impacted. Perhaps the lack of consistency is a bad thing?
>
> We have the same problem all over the testsuite, really - no one keeps
> the makefiles up to date any more.

Just to be clear, given the legitimate objections I've heard, I am
withdrawing this patch. I'll see how to clean the Makefile up. Thanks
to everyone for their feedback.

--
Joel