On Tue, Jun 5, 2018, 9:54 PM Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote: > > On 31/5/18 6:44 am, Vijay Kumar Banerjee wrote: > > On 31 May 2018 at 02:02, Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org <mailto: > j...@rtems.org>> > > wrote: > > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Vijay Kumar Banerjee > > <vijaykumar9...@gmail.com <mailto:vijaykumar9...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > On 31 May 2018 at 00:28, Joel Sherrill <j...@rtems.org > > <mailto:j...@rtems.org>> wrote: > > I may not understand correctly but there is test_run and > > coverage_run. Someone > > suggested making coverage_running an option to test_run. If > that's > > what's being > > asked for, then I think doing it in a follow up patch is OK. > > > > If that's the intended request, perhaps a ticket should be > filed. > > > > > > Sorry for all the confusion. > > This patch doesn't change the way test works. It only adds an > option to run > > the coverage script. coverage_run just runs the > coverage.coverage_run > > > > > > :) And I am saying if we want to have one test_run with an argument, > do it as > > a future work iteration. File a ticket. > > > > We need to get the code working on the master. > > > > Okay, we can keep that as a future work (I haven't thought about it > though). :) > > Getting it to work on master is our primary objective. > > > > Was a ticket raised to removing 'coverage_run' and to use 'test_run'? >
I haven't seen tickets for any of the issues we identified. > > Chris >
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
