Hello Akim, addressing part of your reply:
* Akim Demaille wrote on Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 03:00:42PM CET: > Le 14 mars 09 à 14:46, Ralf Wildenhues a écrit : >> * Akim Demaille wrote on Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 02:25:03PM CET: >>> FWIW, I also noticed that we sometimes had tests that were removed/ >>> renamed that were still marked as XFAILs. So I use this in some of >>> my test suites: >> >> Why are these not simply treated as hard failures? > > Hum, I don't understand what you mean here, they are. My code checks > that members of XFAIL_TESTS and TFAIL_TESTS exist, and reports the > missing ones. Never mind. I misunderstood your prior message completely. Your rule can be simplified a lot: :-) # Check that XFAIL tests do exist. check-test-list-XFAIL: $(XFAIL_TESTS) check-test-list-TFAIL: $(TFAIL_TESTS) .PHONY: check-test-list-XFAIL check-test-list-TFAIL Of course that will also update the actual tests if they are generated themselves, but IIUC then that should not be a problem for you. You could even check-local: check-test-list-XFAIL check-test-list-TFAIL Cheers, Ralf
