All of these are useful.  Some of them might be best if they were subsumed into the current testing.  For example, the special tests are primarily just runs with less common configure options, to make sure that we test things like no weak symbols and memory leak checks.  It would be best is those ran more often anyway.  The configure options test is, IIRC, a light-weight way to check that the expected options still work; it is also a robust test.

The code coverage tests are very valuable, and something that puts us ahead of many other software efforts, including commercial ones (I know one vendor that is interested in what we do because they still don't do careful coverage tests).

The style/error message/non-conforming globals check should help reduce bugs and bug reports.  The Fixme list should be addressed at some point, perhaps in 1.1.  These scripts are relatively robust.  

Bill

On Jan 30, 2008, at 4:44 PM, Dave Goodell wrote:

As I continue to slog through the website migration, I need to know what to do about the various automated testing that is missing from the new website that we previously had.  There are several items:

* mpich2 test suite: http://www.mcs.anl.gov/research/projects/mpich2/testing/
* special tests
* configure options tests
* code coverage analysis
* style checker problems
* error message extractor problems
* non-conforming global symbols
* list of FIXMEs

Before I go and spend a lot of time making each one of these work, do we still want all of them?  My inclination is yes, but if any of them are especially fragile or otherwise useless, it would be nice to know ahead of time.  Also, do any of these have planned replacements?

-Dave


William Gropp
Paul and Cynthia Saylor Professor of Computer Science
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign