[testsuite]

Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)?


TIA

Dominique

Hi Dominique,

> Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)?

this patch needs a ChangeLog entry (and preferably a description of the
problem you're fixing ;-)

> --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pubtypes-2.c 2017-06-17
> 17:55:51.000000000 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pubtypes-2.c	2017-06-25 18:01:52.000000000 +0200
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>  /* { dg-options "-O0 -gdwarf-2 -dA" } */
>  /* { dg-skip-if "Unmatchable assembly" { mmix-*-* } } */
>  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "__debug_pubtypes" } } */
> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "long+\[ \t\]+0x13b+\[ \t\]+\[#;]+\[
> \t\]+Pub Info Length" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "long+\[ \t\]+0x125\[ \t\]+\[#;]+\[
> \t\]+Pub Info Length" } } */
>  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "used_struct\\\\0\"+\[ \t\]+\[#;]+\[
> \t\]+external name" } } */
>  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "unused_struct\\\\0\"+\[ \t\]+\[#;]+\[
> \t\]+external name" } } */
>  
> --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pubtypes-3.c 2017-06-17
> 17:55:52.000000000 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pubtypes-3.c	2017-06-25 18:03:38.000000000 +0200
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>  /* { dg-options "-O0 -gdwarf-2 -dA" } */
>  /* { dg-skip-if "Unmatchable assembly" { mmix-*-* } } */
>  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "__debug_pubtypes" } } */
> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "long+\[ \t\]+0x13b+\[ \t\]+\[#;]+\[
> \t\]+Pub Info Length" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "long+\[ \t\]+0x125\[ \t\]+\[#;]+\[
> \t\]+Pub Info Length" } } */
>  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "used_struct\\\\0\"+\[ \t\]+\[#;]+\[
> \t\]+external name" } } */
>  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "unused_struct\\\\0\"+\[ \t\]+\[#;]+\[
> \t\]+external name" } } */
>  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "\"list_name_type\\\\0\"+\[
> \t\]+\[#;]+\[ \t\]+external name" } } */
> --- ../_clean/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pubtypes-4.c 2017-06-17
> 17:55:51.000000000 +0200
> +++ gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/pubtypes-4.c	2017-06-25 18:04:38.000000000 +0200
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>  /* { dg-options "-O0 -gdwarf-2 -dA" } */
>  /* { dg-skip-if "Unmatchable assembly" { mmix-*-* } } */
>  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "__debug_pubtypes" } } */
> -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "long+\[ \t\]+0x172+\[ \t\]+\[#;]+\[
> \t\]+Pub Info Length" } } */
> +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "long+\[ \t\]+0x15c\[ \t\]+\[#;]+\[
> \t\]+Pub Info Length" } } */
>  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "used_struct\\\\0\"+\[ \t\]+\[#;]+\[
> \t\]+external name" } } */
>  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "unused_struct\\\\0\"+\[ \t\]+\[#;]+\[
> \t\]+external name" } } */
>  /* { dg-final { scan-assembler "\"list_name_type\\\\0\"+\[ \t\]+\[#;]+\[
> \t\]+external name" } } */

Why not got for

/* { dg-final { scan-assembler "long+\[ \t\]+0x\[0-9a-f]+\[ \t\]+\[#;]+\[ \t\]+P
ub Info Length" } } */

i.e. not checking for a specific length, as gcc.dg/pubtypes-1.c already
does?

Thanks.
        Rainer

On Jun 26, 2017, at 2:34 AM, Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> wrote:
> 
>> Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)?
> 
> this patch needs a ChangeLog entry (and preferably a description of the
> problem you're fixing ;-)

Actually, the CL isn't required, testsuite is special that way.

On Jun 26, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Dominique d'Humières <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> wrote:
> 
> Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)?

Ok.  As for [0-9a-f]*ing the numbers, at least 1 of test cases should retain the actual number check.  I'm fine with the resting being an RE, if someone wants to do that.

Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> writes:

> On Jun 26, 2017, at 2:34 AM, Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> wrote:
>> 
>>> Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)?
>> 
>> this patch needs a ChangeLog entry (and preferably a description of the
>> problem you're fixing ;-)
>
> Actually, the CL isn't required, testsuite is special that way.

I believe it is, but some developers choose to ignore that requirement ;-)

	Rainer

On Jun 26, 2017, at 11:35 AM, Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> wrote:
> 
> Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> writes:
> 
>> On Jun 26, 2017, at 2:34 AM, Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)?
>>> 
>>> this patch needs a ChangeLog entry (and preferably a description of the
>>> problem you're fixing ;-)
>> 
>> Actually, the CL isn't required, testsuite is special that way.
> 
> I believe it is,

That's way I sent the email.  It's been this way for a very long time.  I don't recall participating in a consensus building exercise where we changed the requirement, maybe I was sleeping?  If you have a pointer to a thread where we changed it, that'd be fine.  I'm happy to update my notion if we changed it.  The doc page says:

  There is no established convention on when ChangeLog entries are to be made for testsuite changes

so, certainly no one reflected any such change in the web pages yet.  I'd rather consensus build rather than you or I just passing an edict.  Last time we spoke about ChangeLogs, the direction was to eliminate them entirely in preference to the git checkin comments, so, not sure we'd go in that direction today.

> Le 26 juin 2017 à 20:35, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> a écrit :
> 
> On Jun 26, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Dominique d'Humières <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> wrote:
>> 
>> Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)?
> 
> Ok.  As for [0-9a-f]*ing the numbers, at least 1 of test cases should retain the actual number check.  I'm fine with the resting being an RE, if someone wants to do that.

Which test case should retain the actual number check? and could elaborate why? These tests are fragile and the RE have already been changed in the past.

Dominique

On Jun 26, 2017, at 1:56 PM, Dominique d'Humières <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> wrote:
> 
>> Le 26 juin 2017 à 20:35, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> a écrit :
>> On Jun 26, 2017, at 2:26 AM, Dominique d'Humières <dominiq@lps.ens.fr> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Is it OK to commit the following patch (darwin only)?
>> 
>> Ok.  As for [0-9a-f]*ing the numbers, at least 1 of test cases should retain the actual number check.  I'm fine with the resting being an RE, if someone wants to do that.
> 
> Which test case should retain the actual number check? and could elaborate why? These tests are fragile and the RE have already been changed in the past.

This was commentary on the other comment about using REs instead.  You can ignore it, if you want.  As for which test case, I'd have to closely examine them to determine that.  I've not done that.  Technically, you want to check all the ones that have items in them that aren't reflected in other test cases that check the value.