From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20284 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2003 22:43:33 -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 20277 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2003 22:43:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO concert.shout.net) (204.253.184.25) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 2003 22:43:32 -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 h92MhSOm017894; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:43:28 -0500 Received: from duracef.shout.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h92MhSVd003550; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:43:28 -0500 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id h92MhSPd003549; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 18:43:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 22:43:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200310022243.h92MhSPd003549@duracef.shout.net> To: ac131313@redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Don't include value of expression in pc-fp.exp test name Cc: carlton@kealia.com, fnasser@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, jimb@redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00043.txt.bz2 Hi Andrew, ac> It is very important when an issue such as this re-emerges that all ac> parties openly and transparently recognize there are differing opinions ac> - "I think ..., but note that previously this wasn't resolved" - always ac> be willing to raise the red flag so to speak. Yes. We are both here because we love the same things. I've been thinking for the past two days "the point is to work with Andrew, but my e-mail comes out like I'm fighting him, argh." ac> The testsuite contains plenty of cases where the approach of putting ac> suplemental information in paren has been used. "(timeout)" being the ac> most obvious example. Okay, suppose there are results for the same test from two different test runs. gdb.foo/bar.exp: PASS: frotz frotz frotz gdb.foo/bar.exp: FAIL: frotz frotz frotz (timeout) With your analyzer tool, your report shows one test name with two different results: frotz frotz frotz PASS FAIL With my analyzer tool, my report shows two different test names: frotz frotz frotz PASS frotz frotz frotz (timeout) FAIL This is slightly incorrect. So I agree, it is nice to have an invariant test name with supplemental information. Now here's another case: 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) Your analyzer tool makes a mess of this, but my analyzer tool understands this perfectly. ac> Now we're getting somewhere. You've suggested /\/\/.*$/ as an ac> alternative pattern. Are there guidelines in the dejagnu doco? I looked, but I didn't find any. I think we are breaking new ground here. Michael C