From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21126 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2003 19:06:38 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21119 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2003 19:06:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO concert.shout.net) (204.253.184.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Oct 2003 19:06:37 -0000 Received: from duracef.shout.net (duracef.shout.net [204.253.184.12]) by concert.shout.net (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h91J6YOm016706; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 14:06:34 -0500 Received: from duracef.shout.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h91J6YVd015767; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 14:06:34 -0500 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id h91J6YlQ015766; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:06:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 19:06:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200310011906.h91J6YlQ015766@duracef.shout.net> To: ac131313@redhat.com, carlton@kealia.com Subject: Re: RFA: Don't include value of expression in pc-fp.exp test name Cc: fnasser@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, jimb@redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney writes: > Michael, you and I had an e-mail exchange about this very issue. The > end result, last time, was no change. Right. You think there's a convention about "(...)", and I think there isn't. Neither of us has changed our minds. Fact: there are 1500+ test names with "(...)" in them. Question: do you think these test names are written incorrectly? If so, do you have any suggestions for alternate ways to rewrite test names such as: # parentheses used for precedence gdb.base/arithmet.exp: print x-(y+w) gdb.base/arithmet.exp: print x/(y*w) gdb.base/arithmet.exp: print x-(y/w) gdb.base/arithmet.exp: print (x+y)*w # parentheses used for function calls gdb.base/call-ar-st.exp: print print_double_array(double_array) gdb.base/call-ar-st.exp: print print_char_array(char_array) gdb.base/call-ar-st.exp: print print_double_array(array_d) gdb.base/call-ar-st.exp: print sum_array_print(10, *list1, *list2, *list3, *list4) gdb.base/call-ar-st.exp: print print_array_rep(*list1, *list2, *list3) # parentheses used for casts gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: (const char) gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: (const signed char) gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: (const unsigned char) gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: (const short) gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: (const signed short) gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: (const unsigned short) gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: (const int) gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: (const signed int) gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: (const unsigned int) I am really adamant on this question. Either "(...)" is legal to use in test names and this line of your script is wrong: gsub (/ *\([^)]*\)/, "", test) Or "(...)" is not legal to use in test names and we have 100+ test scripts which are buggy and need to be patched. Which is it? If you want to say that "// ..." is a way of adding information, then I would be okay with that, because I don't have any results with "// ..." in the test name. > For instance sizeof.exp contains various tests to check that sizes are > sane. The actual sizes found are included in the output. That's fine > since if the numbers were to change between runs the test results are > pretty sunk. Sure, this part is fine. Michael C