Hi Iain!
On 2019-11-17T10:28:26+0000, Iain Sandoe <i...@sandoe.co.uk> wrote:
> There are two categories of test:
>
> 1. Checks for correctly formed source code and the error reporting.
> 2. Checks for transformation and code-gen.
>
> The second set are run as 'torture' tests for the standard options
> set, including LTO. These are also intentionally run with no options
> provided (from the coroutines.exp script).
I recently was confused why I'm seeing the same test case first without
and then again with torture testing options; non-standard in the GCC test
suite, per my experience at least? Should we therefore add a short
rationale comment to the 'find' in 'g++.dg/coroutines/coroutines.exp',
why 'g++.dg/coroutines/torture/' test cases are not being filtered out
there, despite more specific 'g++.dg/coroutines/torture/coro-torture.exp'
testing these, too?
Grüße
Thomas
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/coroutines/coroutines.exp
> @@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
> +foreach test [lsort [find $srcdir/$subdir {*.[CH]}]] {
> + if [runtest_file_p $runtests $test] {
> + set nshort [file tail [file dirname $test]]/[file tail $test]
> + verbose "Testing $nshort $DEFAULT_COROFLAGS" 1
> + dg-test $test "" $DEFAULT_COROFLAGS
> + set testcase [string range $test [string length "$srcdir/"] end]
> + }
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/g++.dg/coroutines/torture/coro-torture.exp
> +gcc-dg-runtest [lsort [glob $srcdir/$subdir/*.C]] "" $DEFAULT_COROFLAGS
