On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 02:07:07PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote: > On Tue, 2013-08-06 at 11:09 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 05, 2013 at 02:45:25PM +0300, Imre Deak wrote: > > > At the moment any command line option handling done by tests will > > > interfere with the option handling of the subtest interface. To fix this > > > add a new version of the subtest_init function accepting optional short > > > and long command line options. Merge these together with the subtest > > > interface's own long options and handle both together in the same > > > getopt_long call. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Imre Deak <imre.deak@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Hm, I've thought that getopt would filter the passed-in argv/argc arrays > > and we could run a second getopt afterwards without too much interfence > > (maybe we need to reset a few global getop state variables). But I'm not > > sure since I've never tried it out. Am I wrong? > > Afaics getopt itself can't handle the long options (which we already > have for subtests), it'll try to parse each character of the long option > as a short one. > > We could still do the scanning twice by always using getopt_long, but > there I don't like the fact that we would have to set opterr=0 and > silently ignore invalid options. Also I thought that later we could add > a check for clashing test case/subtest options and that's not possible > by scanning twice. Hm, just scanning with getopt_long twice was actually my idea. It's a bit ugly that we then can't check for unknown options. But since you have all already solved I think we could just move ahead with your patch here. So please push. Cheers, Daniel -- Daniel Vetter Software Engineer, Intel Corporation +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
