Re: CVS commit: src/regress/lib/libc

["Julio M. Merino Vidal" <jmmv84%gmail.com@localhost>]

On Jan 19, 2008, at 5:10 PM, Brian Ginsbach wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 03:19:13PM +0200, Antti Kantee wrote:
> > Shouldn't new tests be written for atf instead of the old  
> > framework?  >
>
> It would if the ATF API was in C :-(.  I was easily able to knock
> this out.  I did look at the ATF stuff but the lack of API
> documentation, harry C++ macroness and no C API kept me away.  I
> felt some test is better than no test.

The macros are there, precisely, to hide many C++ constructions that  
many developers would not be comfortable about.  In many cases, your  
tests will only include a couple of macros here and there, and then  
include your plain C testing code.  Voila, no visible C++ code.

> On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 02:43:33PM +0100, Julio M. Merino Vidal wrote:
> > In my opinion, yes.  I'm trying to get atf 0.4 out of the door soon,
> > which brings some needed API-related documentation that will be
> > hopefully useful to those writing new tests.
>
> Maybe.  It would have certainly have helped.  But IMHO w/o a C API
> it is less useful.  I also get the feeling that ATF may have an
> incomplete API.

I have a C-only API in mind... but that will take a non-trivial  
amount of effort to write.