Re: [PATCH v2 8/8] Fixup testcases outputting own name as a test name and standardize failed compilation messages

[Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.com>]

On 12/01/2016 05:08 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> I thought I had sent this yesterday, but I now see I haven't..
>
> On 11/25/2016 08:54 PM, Luis Machado wrote:
>> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/info-shared.exp
>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/info-shared.exp
>> @@ -31,13 +31,13 @@ set define2 -DSHLIB2_NAME=\"$binfile_lib2\"
>>
>>  if { [gdb_compile_shlib $srcfile_lib1 $binfile_lib1 \
>>  	  [list additional_flags=-fPIC]] != "" } {
>> -    untested "could not compile $binfile_lib1."
>> +    untested "failed to compile shared library"
>>      return -1
>>  }
>>
>>  if { [gdb_compile_shlib $srcfile_lib2 $binfile_lib2 \
>>  	  [list additional_flags=-fPIC]] != "" } {
>> -    untested "could not compile $binfile_lib2."
>> +    untested "failed to compile shared library"
>>      return -1
>
> Duplicate test message.  Write something like:
>
>   untested "failed to compile shared library 1"
>   untested "failed to compile shared library 2"
>
> Another example (though unlike the above, this case was already
> duplicate):
>
>> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/attach.exp
>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/attach.exp
>> @@ -30,14 +30,14 @@ remote_exec build "rm -f ${binfile} ${binfile2}"
>>  # build the first test case
>>  #
>>  if  { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable {debug}] != "" } {
>> -    untested attach.exp
>> +    untested "failed to compile"
>>      return -1
>>  }
>
>     untested "failed to compile first test case"
>
>>
>>  # Build the in-system-call test
>>
>>  if  { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile2}" "${binfile2}" executable {debug}] != "" } {
>> -    untested attach.exp
>> +    untested "failed to compile"
>
>     untested "failed to compile in-system-call test"
>
>
> There are likely more instances in the patch.  Since you're now reusing the same
> string on all tests, I think it should be easy to grep (+sort+uniq)
> for "failed to compile" to catch them.  Could you do that?
>
> Thanks,
> Pedro Alves
>

Sure. I'll get those addressed.