Patchwork [test] Enable to prune warnings for tests defined in one exp file

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Terry Guo
Date Aug. 27, 2012, 8:14 a.m.
Message ID <000201cd842c$0ceda220$26c8e660$@guo@arm.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/180151/
State New
Headers show

Comments

Terry Guo - Aug. 27, 2012, 8:14 a.m.
Hello,

This patch intends to provide a chance to prune common warning messages for
tests defined in an exp file. It can avoid adding dg-prune to such cases one
by one. The story behind this patch is that when torture cases in arm.exp
with various arch/cpu options, there are always warnings on "warning: switch
-mcpu=cortex-m3 conflicts with -march=armv5te switch [enabled by default]".
The "-march=armv5te" is from dg-options of the case. The "-mcpu=cortex-m3"
is from options we used to torture this case. To avoid such harmless
warnings, usually we need to manually add dg-prune to such cases one by one.
This is kind of less efficient. With this path, we just need to add this
warning into variable dg_runtest_extra_prunes.

The related discussion is at
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-09/msg00630.html.

Tested on QEMU for cortex-m3 and x86 platform. The test-framework.exp is
also enabled. No regression found.

Is it OK to trunk?

BR,
Terry

2012-08-27  Terry Guo  <terry.guo@arm.com>

        * lib/gcc-dg.exp (dg_runtest_extra_prunes): New variable to define
rules
        that will be applied to all tests in a .exp file.
        (gcc-dg-prune): Include rules defined by the above variable.

        * gcc.target/arm/arm.exp (dg_runtest_extra_prunes): Skip all the
harmless
        architecture switch conflict warnings.
Mike Stump - Aug. 27, 2012, 5:20 p.m.
On Aug 27, 2012, at 1:14 AM, Terry Guo wrote:
> This patch intends to provide a chance to prune common warning messages for
> tests defined in an exp file.

> Is it OK to trunk?

Ok.

If you can find where to document this...  :-)  That'd be nice.
Terry Guo - Sept. 4, 2012, 6:05 a.m.
Hi Mike,

Is it ok to document this feature in README.gcc? Is it ok to back port this
feature to 4.7 branch? Thanks.

BR,
Terry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Terry Guo [mailto:terry.guo@arm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:45 AM
> To: 'Mike Stump'
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Richard Guenther
> Subject: RE: [Patch, test] Enable to prune warnings for tests defined
> in one exp file
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Stump [mailto:mikestump@comcast.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 1:21 AM
> > To: Terry Guo
> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Richard Guenther
> > Subject: Re: [Patch, test] Enable to prune warnings for tests defined
> > in one exp file
> >
> > On Aug 27, 2012, at 1:14 AM, Terry Guo wrote:
> > > This patch intends to provide a chance to prune common warning
> > messages for
> > > tests defined in an exp file.
> >
> > > Is it OK to trunk?
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> > If you can find where to document this...  :-)  That'd be nice.
> >
> 
> I checked the texi files in gcc/doc folder, but can't find a suitable
> place. So I resort to README.gcc in gcc/testsuite which is claimed to
> list notes for those writing testcases and those writing expect scripts.
> Following is the patch. Is it OK?
> 
> BR,
> Terry
> 
> 2012-08-30  Terry Guo  <terry.guo@arm.com>
> 
>         * README.gcc: Document new variable dg_runtest_extra_prunes.
> 
> Index: gcc/testsuite/README.gcc
> ===================================================================
> --- gcc/testsuite/README.gcc	(revision 190795)
> +++ gcc/testsuite/README.gcc	(working copy)
> @@ -79,6 +79,11 @@
> 
>  If a test does not fit into the torture framework, use the dg
> framework.
> 
> +If some tests in an exp file need to skip same warning messages, just
> define
> +variable dg_runtest_extra_prunes in this exp file and let it contain
> this warning
> +message pattern.  This can avoid duplicating dg-prune in these cases.
> +Always remember to clear this variable when leave this exp file.
> +
> 
> 
>  Copyright (C) 1997, 1998, 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Mike Stump - Sept. 4, 2012, 5 p.m.
On Sep 3, 2012, at 11:05 PM, Terry Guo <terry.guo@arm.com> wrote:
> Is it ok to document this feature in README.gcc?

Sure.  I was almost hoping someone had a pointer to a wiki page that had new bits...

> Is it ok to back port this feature to 4.7 branch?

Ok.

Patch

diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/arm.exp
b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/arm.exp
index 0838d37..3a62b24 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/arm.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/arm/arm.exp
@@ -30,6 +30,11 @@  if ![info exists DEFAULT_CFLAGS] then {
     set DEFAULT_CFLAGS " -ansi -pedantic-errors"
 }

+# This variable should only apply to tests called in this exp file.
+global dg_runtest_extra_prunes
+set dg_runtest_extra_prunes ""
+lappend dg_runtest_extra_prunes "warning: switch -m(cpu|arch)=.* conflicts
with -m(cpu|arch)=.* switch"
+
 # Initialize `dg'.
 dg-init

@@ -38,4 +43,5 @@  dg-runtest [lsort [glob -nocomplain
$srcdir/$subdir/*.\[cCS\]]] \
        "" $DEFAULT_CFLAGS

 # All done.
+set dg_runtest_extra_prunes ""
 dg-finish
diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
index 3bff8b4..825c2f6 100644
--- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
+++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/gcc-dg.exp
@@ -211,9 +211,13 @@  proc gcc-dg-test { prog do_what extra_tool_flags } {
 proc gcc-dg-prune { system text } {
     global additional_prunes

+    # Extra prune rules that will apply to tests defined in a .exp file.
+    # Always remember to clear it in .exp file after executed all tests.
+    global dg_runtest_extra_prunes
+
     set text [prune_gcc_output $text]

-    foreach p $additional_prunes {
+    foreach p "$additional_prunes $dg_runtest_extra_prunes" {
        if { [string length $p] > 0 } {
            # Following regexp matches a complete line containing $p.
            regsub -all "(^|\n)\[^\n\]*$p\[^\n\]*" $text "" text
@@ -809,3 +813,4 @@  proc gdb-exists { args } {
 }

 set additional_prunes ""
+set dg_runtest_extra_prunes ""