Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix RerunWithoutElaboration #238

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 9, 2019
Merged

Fix RerunWithoutElaboration #238

merged 1 commit into from
Apr 9, 2019

Conversation

chick
Copy link
Contributor

@chick chick commented Apr 9, 2019

  • I believe this test was re-activated in broken form
    • Happened when fixed the verilator check method
  • Made this into a single test to ensure sequential execution
  • Moved the working directory for test into test_run_dir

- I believe this test was re-activated in broken form
  - Happened when fixed the verilator check method
- Made this into a single test to ensure sequential execution
- Moved the working directory for test into test_run_dir
@chick chick added the bugfix label Apr 9, 2019
@chick chick requested a review from ucbjrl April 9, 2019 21:54
@chick chick requested a review from a team as a code owner April 9, 2019 21:54
@chick chick self-assigned this Apr 9, 2019
Copy link
Contributor

@ucbjrl ucbjrl left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

@@ -14,13 +14,12 @@ class RerunWithoutElaboratonAndCompileSpec extends FreeSpec with Matchers {
"Demonstrate how to re-run a given test without recompiling" - {
"build once" in {
iotesters.Driver.execute(
Array("--backend-name", "verilator", "--target-dir", "build1", "--top-name", "PlusOne"), () => new PlusOne
Array("--backend-name", "verilator", "--target-dir", "test_run_dir/build1", "--top-name", "PlusOne"), () => new PlusOne
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could we make this path (and the one following at line 22) more DRYer?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants