From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15047 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2003 15:49:16 -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 15038 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2003 15:49:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hawaii.kealia.com) (209.3.10.89) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Oct 2003 15:49:16 -0000 Received: by hawaii.kealia.com (Postfix, from userid 2049) id E4B19CB33; Wed, 1 Oct 2003 08:49:15 -0700 (PDT) To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , jimb@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Don't include value of expression in pc-fp.exp test name References: <200309301749.h8UHnZkE029086@duracef.shout.net> <3F7AF34A.4070605@redhat.com> From: David Carlton Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 15:49:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <3F7AF34A.4070605@redhat.com> (Andrew Cagney's message of "Wed, 01 Oct 2003 11:31:22 -0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 11:31:22 -0400, Andrew Cagney said: > As Michael well knows, supplemental information, such as which > specific branch of a test passed or failed can be included in paren > in the test message. Any analysis tools comparing test results > needs to accomodate this convention. Then check in some analysis tools that do this. Until you do that, I'm going to stick with 'diff -u': it works fine for everything but the threads test (where reordering is harder to get away with) and pc-fp.exp. From my point of view, all that you've accomplished by putting that hex string in pc-fp.exp is made it more likely that I'll ignore the test, just like I do with print-threads.exp and schedlock.exp. I really don't understand the motivation behind putting random stuff in parentheses and then complaining that people aren't ignoring it. If you want people to ignore it, and even encourage people to use tools which shield them from it, then why have it there in the first place? I can see that making FAIL messages more verbose, especially if the verbosity is in human-readable form. But PASS messages, with hex strings? What am I supposed to do with that hex string? Especially since I can get that data out of gdb.log if I really need it. David Carlton carlton@kealia.com