From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2584 invoked by alias); 2 Oct 2003 21:55:01 -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 2575 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2003 21:55:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 2003 21:55:00 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44BD32B89; Thu, 2 Oct 2003 17:54:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F7C9EB3.7040306@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 21:55:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: carlton@kealia.com, fnasser@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, jimb@redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Don't include value of expression in pc-fp.exp test name References: <200310011906.h91J6YlQ015766@duracef.shout.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00040.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. The testsuite contains plenty of cases where the approach of putting suplemental information in paren has been used. "(timeout)" being the most obvious example. Whether the convention or pratice or what ever has been used consistently, or uniformly, is of course a separate problem. > Neither of us has changed our minds. It is very important when an issue such as this re-emerges that all parties openly and transparently recognize there are differing opinions - "I think ..., but note that previously this wasn't resolved" - always be willing to raise the red flag so to speak. The other thing is to not assume that people have closed minds. > Fact: there are 1500+ test names with "(...)" in them. > > Question: do you think these test names are written incorrectly? I'll take that as retorical. > 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 Now we're getting somewhere. You've suggested /\/\/.*$/ as an alternative pattern. Are there guidelines in the dejagnu doco? Andrew