Unit tests of internal functions
Ken Raeburn
raeburn at MIT.EDU
Mon Dec 28 20:23:49 EST 2009
On Dec 28, 2009, at 19:51, Russ Allbery wrote:
> FWIW, I'm moving all of my packages to Automake and Libtool, and while
> that approach is not without problems, I think it's the right
> direction to
> go. It means that there's at least some hope that other people have
> already run into whatever weird build problem you have and have
> written
> recipes to deal with, or even taught Automake and Libtool about it
> directly. Upstream on both projects is fairly responsive.
We do some odd things in places, so it might take some work, even from
someone experienced with the tools. But I'm not going to tell anyone
not to try. (It'd be major enough a change that they'd probably need
to write up a project proposal explaining how it would be done and why
it would be a win.) I'd also like to see more parallelism allowed in
the build, while someone is hacking on it; there's no reason we can't
build MD5 and SHA1 code at the same time, for example.
Last I looked, though, libtool supported neither library
initialization/finalization functions nor symbol export lists, and we
use both (and perhaps eventually symbol versioning). The export lists
we could make do without, but the finalization support would be a
problem for anything dynamically loading and unloading our libraries.
Some platforms let you do it via source-file declarations to the
compiler, but some require extra options to be passed to the linker on
the command line. Have you seen anything to indicate that they've
addressed this?
Ken
More information about the krbdev
mailing list