Re: [PPL-devel] Re: Doing something just a bit more complex than `make check'

[Roberto Bagnara]

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Ah, ok.  A couple of comments.  First, a bug I introduced by giving a
> non-complete example: Some `make' implementations will not allow you to
> override a macro on the command line iff it is also set in the Makefile.
> With `TESTS', that is the case in your script.  Portable would be
>    TESTS='...' make -e check
>
> but `make -e' has its share of problems, too, depending on your
> environment (same issue with the other variables, of course).  Another
> point where Autotest is more flexible.
>
> Furthermore, you write
>
> | check_PROGRAMS=$(MAKEFLAGS='' make -s print_check_PROGRAMS)
>
> which I assume you need to avoid clutter in the output.  I know many
> systems where it is very useful to override the `make' command used,
> so $MAKE would probably be better here and elsewhere in the script
> (unless that interferes with clutter in the output), e.g. to be able
> to use a make that allows macro override on the command line.

Thanks a lot, Ralf.  I have done as you suggest.

> Then, a comment to the Makefile.am: you don't need the lines
> | srcdir = @srcdir@
> | VPATH = @VPATH@
> | @SET_MAKE@
> | SUBDIRS =
>
> automake will take care of that by itself.

Is also

abs_srcdir = @abs_srcdir@

redundant?

> * Roberto Bagnara wrote on Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 06:12:06PM CET:
> > Autotest looks attractive.  We may consider switching to it as soon
> > as it stabilizes.
>
>
> The next Autoconf release should have a decently usable version of it.

I look forward to it.
Thanks again,

    Roberto

--
Prof. Roberto Bagnara
Computer Science Group
Department of Mathematics, University of Parma, Italy
http://www.cs.unipr.it/~bagnara/
mailto:address@hidden