Changeset 6fe0974 in rtems-testing


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Aug 26, 2010, 8:03:50 PM (9 years ago)
Author:
Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@…>
Branches:
4.11, 8895273c193787f84c4585a10f6d6aceb3b25dc4
Children:
285f70a
Parents:
8e770afc
Message:

2010-08-26 Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@…>

  • Explanations.txt: Remove cases which are now RTEMS_DEBUG.
Location:
rtems-coverage
Files:
2 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
  • rtems-coverage/ChangeLog

    r8e770afc r6fe0974  
     12010-08-26      Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@oarcorp.com>
     2
     3        * Explanations.txt: Remove cases which are now RTEMS_DEBUG.
     4
    152010-08-09      Bharath Suri <bharath.s.jois@gmail.com>
    26
  • rtems-coverage/Explanations.txt

    r8e770afc r6fe0974  
    159159Sebastian needs to write a test case for this.
    160160+++
    161 
    162 eval.c:95
    163 Discuss
    164 This, I feel is a valid test unless we have certain guidelines / tests
    165 to be done in the callers.
    166 Or we could have a new test that directly calls the
    167 rtems_filesystem_evaluate_path, if that is OK.
    168 +++
    169 
    170 eval.c:98
    171 Discuss
    172 This, I feel is a valid test unless we have certain guidelines / tests
    173 to be done in the callers.
    174 Or we could have a new test that directly calls the
    175 rtems_filesystem_evaluate_path, if that is OK.
    176 +++
    177 
    178 eval.c:40
    179 Discuss
    180 This, I feel is a valid test unless we have certain guidelines / tests
    181 to be done in the callers.
    182 Or we could have a new test that directly calls the
    183 rtems_filesystem_evaluate_relative_path, if that is OK.
    184 +++
    185 
    186 eval.c:43
    187 Discuss
    188 This, I feel is a valid test unless we have certain guidelines / tests
    189 to be done in the callers.
    190 Or we could have a new test that directly calls the
    191 rtems_filesystem_evaluate_relative_path, if that is OK.
    192 +++
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.