1
Fork 0
mirror of https://git.savannah.gnu.org/git/guile.git synced 2025-06-28 22:10:29 +02:00
guile/test-suite
Andy Wingo f7027a8b88 Port read/write functions take bytevectors
This will allow better Scheme integration for ports.

* libguile/ports.h (scm_t_port_buffer): Change "holder" member to be a
  bytevector defined to have "buf" as its starting point.
  (scm_t_ptob_descriptor): Change read and write functions to take
  bytevectors as arguments and to return the number of octets read or
  written.
  (scm_make_port_type): Adapt accordingly.
  (scm_c_read_bytes, scm_c_write_bytes): New functions that take
  bytevectors.
* libguile/ports.c (scm_make_port_type): Adapt to read/write function
  prototype change.
  (scm_c_make_port_buffer): Arrange to populate the "bytevector" field.
  (scm_i_read_bytes_unlocked): New function.
  (scm_i_read_unlocked): Use scm_i_read_bytes_unlocked.
  (scm_c_read_bytes_unlocked): New function.
  (scm_c_read_unlocked): Update comment, and always go through the
  buffer.
  (scm_c_read_bytes): New function.
  (scm_flush_unlocked): Use scm_i_write_unlocked instead of the port's
  write function.
  (scm_i_write_bytes_unlocked): New function.
  (scm_i_write_unlocked): Use scm_i_write_bytes_unlocked.
  (scm_c_write_bytes_unlocked): New function.
  (scm_c_write_unlocked): Always write through the buffer.
  (scm_c_write_bytes): New function.
  (scm_truncate_file): Remove unused variable.
  (void_port_read, void_port_write): Adapt to read/write prototype
  change.
* libguile/fports.c (fport_read, fport_write):
* libguile/r6rs-ports.c (bytevector_input_port_read)
  (custom_binary_input_port_read, bytevector_output_port_write)
  (custom_binary_output_port_write, transcoded_port_write)
  (transcoded_port_read): Adapt to read/write prototype
  change.
  (scm_get_bytevector_n, scm_get_bytevector_n_x)
  (scm_get_bytevector_all): Use scm_c_read_bytes.
  (scm_put_bytevector): Use scm_c_write_bytes.
* libguile/strports.c (string_port_read, string_port_write):
* libguile/vports.c (soft_port_write, soft_port_read): Adapt to
  read/write prototype change.
* test-suite/standalone/test-scm-c-read.c (custom_port_read): Fix for
  read API change.
2016-04-11 22:23:47 +02:00
..
lalr remove duplicate when/unless definitions 2012-01-20 21:16:50 +01:00
standalone Port read/write functions take bytevectors 2016-04-11 22:23:47 +02:00
test-suite Run some of arrays.test under both compiler & interpreter 2014-09-30 11:35:08 +02:00
tests Generic port facility provides buffering uniformly 2016-04-06 19:21:44 +02:00
vm Rename "RTL" to "bytecode" 2013-12-02 21:31:47 +01:00
ChangeLog-2008 Rename ChangeLog' files to ChangeLog-2008'. 2008-09-12 21:49:58 +02:00
guile-test Fix improper use of 'with-locale'. 2014-02-08 12:40:15 -05:00
Makefile.am Add (ice-9 unicode) module 2014-09-29 21:54:14 -04:00
README Revert "Note need for subscription to bug-guile@gnu.org." 2008-12-10 19:07:14 +00:00

This directory contains some tests for Guile, and some generic test
support code.

To run these tests, you will need a version of Guile more recent than
15 Feb 1999 --- the tests use the (ice-9 and-let*) and (ice-9
getopt-long) modules, which were added to Guile around then.

For information about how to run the test suite, read the usage
instructions in the comments at the top of the guile-test script.

You can reference the file `lib.scm' from your own code as the module
(test-suite lib); it also has comments at the top and before each
function explaining what's going on.

Please write more Guile tests, and send them to bug-guile@gnu.org.
We'll merge them into the distribution.  All test suites must be
licensed for our use under the GPL, but I don't think I'm going to
collect assignment papers for them.



Some test suite philosophy:

GDB has an extensive test suite --- around 6300 tests.  Every time the
test suite catches a bug, it's great.

GDB is so complicated that folks are often unable to get a solid
understanding of the code before making a change --- we just don't
have time.  You'll see people say things like, "Here's a fix for X; it
doesn't cause any regressions."  The subtext is, I made a change that
looks reasonable, and the test suite didn't complain, so it must be
okay.

I think this is terrible, because it suggests that the writer is using
the test suite as a substitute for having a rock-solid explanation of
why their changes are correct.  The problem is that any test suite is
woefully incomplete.  Diligent reasoning about code can catch corner
conditions or limitations that no test suite will ever find.



Jim's rule for test suites:

Every test suite failure should be a complete, mysterious surprise,
never a possibility you were prepared for.  Any other attitude
indicates that you're using the test suite as a crutch, which you need
only because your understanding is weak.