>> Note about the POC patch limitations/questions:
>>
>> - is deriving a schedule with a piece of shell okay?
>> or should perl/python/whatever scripting be better?
>
> I would think all we need are the results, i.e. the schedule files, plus
> some Makefile entries for them.
You can replicate data, but maintaining a set of files consistently looks
like a bad idea to me, because it means that you have to update all
replicated data for all changes. The current status is that there are two
files, parallel & sequential, so it is not too bad. With big tests that
could be 4, so it seems reasonnable to have at least some automatic
derivation.
>> - I'm really not sure about VPATH stuff.
>
> This should be totally transparent to VPATH builds.
Sure:-) It means that I have not tested that, so it may or may not work.
>> - I do not understand why the makefile specifies $(srcdir) before
>> local files in some places.
>
> For VPATH builds :-)
Hmmm. That is not what I call "transparent":-) So I understand that
derived files should not have them, because they would be put in the build
tree instead of the source tree.
--
Fabien.