From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: why does make check run all tests? Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2015 22:03:00 +0000 Message-ID: <871tb4jyp7.fsf@russet.org.uk> References: <878u5dcanf.fsf@russet.org.uk> <87610hf182.fsf@gmx.de> <867fkwmw2f.fsf@stephe-leake.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1449093813 23467 80.91.229.3 (2 Dec 2015 22:03:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 22:03:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Michael Albinus , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stephen Leake Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Dec 02 23:03:25 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1a4FUg-0004Ra-5J for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 23:03:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60519 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a4FUf-0000WH-1n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 17:03:21 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60826) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a4FUQ-0000O0-P6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 17:03:07 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a4FUM-0003Rh-PM for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 17:03:06 -0500 Original-Received: from cheviot12.ncl.ac.uk ([128.240.234.12]:51364) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a4FUM-0003RX-Je for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 17:03:02 -0500 Original-Received: from smtpauth-vm.ncl.ac.uk ([10.8.233.129] helo=smtpauth.ncl.ac.uk) by cheviot12.ncl.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1a4FUK-0001GP-CU; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 22:03:00 +0000 Original-Received: from cpc6-benw10-2-0-cust45.gate.cable.virginm.net ([92.238.179.46] helo=localhost) by smtpauth.ncl.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1a4FUK-00039g-Mb; Wed, 02 Dec 2015 22:03:00 +0000 In-Reply-To: <867fkwmw2f.fsf@stephe-leake.org> (Stephen Leake's message of "Wed, 2 Dec 2015 14:31:36 -0600") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 128.240.234.12 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:195786 Archived-At: Stephen Leake writes: > Michael Albinus writes: > >> phillip.lord@russet.org.uk (Phillip Lord) writes: >> >>> Should make check just not build incrementally? If you want to run >>> everything unconditionally, then why not use >>> >>> make clean check >>> >>> Or am I missing something obvious? In which case, I will need to restore >>> the old behaviour for make check and leave make check-maybe as is. >> >> "make check" is not intented to check, whether a *changed* file still >> runs successfully. "make check" is intended to run a full regression >> test over Emacs. Pls keep this functionality. I've restored this functionality now (which I accidentally removed). make check-maybe is incremental as before, due also depends on the files being tested. > Especially since the dependencies are not complete; elisp-mode-tests.el > only depends on elisp-mode.el, not on the transitive require closure. Strictly, yes, this is true, but then I think this is true of other parts of the Emacs build -- elisp-mode.elc depends only on elisp-mode.el (in the makefile), although, IIUC, elisp-mode.elc also depends on cl-generic and it's macros. In practice, the dependencies I have added make a reasonable guess, I think. Still, your point is well made. I think both incremental and unconditional tests need to be there. Phil