> From: Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 23:39:27 +0100
> received-spf: None (smtp1.axis.com: no sender authenticity information
> available from domain of postmas...@mail-il1-f172.google.com) identity=helo;
> client-ip=209.85.166.172; receiver=smtp1.axis.com;
> envelope-from="jeffreya...@gmail.com";
> x-sender="postmas...@mail-il1-f172.google.com";
> x-conformance=sidf_compatible
> Old-Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="_000_08d773b4a6cd248fc44aa1877542afabgmailcom_"
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>
>
> On 2/24/21 10:17 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > The gcc.misc-tests/outputs.exp tests can take some effort to
> > digest.
> >
> > Navigating and debugging causes for failing tests here isn't
> > helped by the existence of tests with duplicate names.
> > Let's stop that from happening. This requires that test-run
> > output is actually reviewed, as Tcl errors don't stop the
> > test-run, but then again there's no such dejagnu construct
> > that I know of.
> >
> > Tested x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.
> >
> > Ok to commit? Or is a renaming patch appending a
> > number-suffix, like:
> >
> > --- outputs.exp.orig3 2021-02-25 06:13:28.304243791 +0100
> > +++ outputs.exp 2021-02-25 06:13:51.575457825 +0100
> > @@ -280,8 +280,8 @@ if { "$aout" != "" } then {
> > }
> >
> > # Driver-chosen outputs.
> > -outest "$b asm default 1" $sing "-S" {} {{-0.s}}
> > -outest "$b asm default 2" $mult "-S" {} {{-1.s -2.s}}
> > +outest "$b-1 asm default 1" $sing "-S" {} {{-0.s}}
> > +outest "$b-2 asm default 2" $mult "-S" {} {{-1.s -2.s}}
> > ...
> >
> > ...better and ok to commit? (IMHO: yes, much easier to follow)
> >
> > gcc/testsuite:
> > * gcc.misc-tests/outputs.exp: Append discriminating
> > suffixes to tests with duplicate names.
> > (outest): Assert that each running test has a unique
> > name.
> OK. And I think that in general changes which fix duplicated testnames
> should be considered as not needing approval. Just fix 'em and post the
> patch for the historical record :-)
Ok, thanks for the review!
Since there were two versions suggested and (to me) the "OK"
was ambiguous, I'll go ahead with the suggested (but
scripted) renaming of e.g. "$b blah", "$b foo", "$b blah
with futz", "$b frob" (etc) into "$b-1 blah", "$b-2 foo",
"$b-3 blah with futz", "$b-4 frob" (etc) ;-) But, I'm going
to wait 24h.
brgds, H-P
