[Pixman] [PATCH 3/3] test: Add cover-test v4

Ben Avison bavison at riscosopen.org
Wed Sep 9 10:31:42 PDT 2015

On Wed, 09 Sep 2015 09:37:41 +0100, Pekka Paalanen <ppaalanen at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we need some indication whether cover-test runs with or without
> fencing. So far I have thought that if fence-image-self-test is
> skipped, then cover-test can only run without fencing. If
> fence-image-self-test is not skipped, then cover-test uses fencing if
> it is not skipped.
> It's perhaps a bit too subtle.

Too subtle for me :)

> Maybe cover-test should have a single printf telling if it is fenced or
> not? That would show up on old autotools, but on new ones you have to
> go look in the logs anyway.
> Maybe it would be most obvious if cover-test either always used fencing
> or skipped. We'd lose the CRC check on too-large-page systems, but at
> least if we see it as a PASS, we can be sure it used fencing. How's that?

Since one test is compile-time (availability of fencing) and the other is
runtime (reading the page size) I admit it's easier to settle on skipping
the test in both cases  - the alternative would need to be a layer of
runtime abstraction between fenced and non-fenced images.

Perhaps a compromise is to

a) skip the test if the page size is too large (i.e. treat this as an
error condition, until someone is motivated to either abstract the fence
image code so it can be disabled at runtime, or to rework it to support
larger page sizes)

b) printf a warning iff fencing isn't available (a bit like the way the
PIXMAN_DISABLE parser doesn't feel the need to list the implementations
that aren't being skipped)



More information about the Pixman mailing list