> On 10 Sep 2025, at 13:42, Christophe Lyon <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 10 Sept 2025 at 12:23, Iain Sandoe <idsan...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 10 Sep 2025, at 11:12, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
>>> <richard.earns...@arm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/09/2025 10:54, Christophe Lyon wrote:
>>>> If the results include several configurations (schedule of
>>>> variations), do not report summary lines as duplicates. Indeed with
>>>> several configurations, it's likely that the results contain the same
>>>>
>>>> # of expected passes XXXXX
>>>>
>>>> The patch just keeps lines starting with test state prefix to avoid
>>>> this problem.
>>>>
>>>> contrib/ChangeLog:
>>>>
>>>> * compare_tests: Improve non-unique tests report when testing
>>>> several configurations.
>>>
>>> OK.
>>
>> Now we have this facility - and it is firing on my testboxes (since i use
>> this
>> script to post-process [per .sum file for stability]) - I looked through a
>> few of
>> the reported cases and they seem genuiene - but particularly in respect of
>> dg-final ones, hard to see how they can be disambiguated without we make
>> dg-final able to add some tag to differentiate.
>
> I must confess I didn't look at the list in detail, hoping that people
> would gradually / promptly fix things of interest to then ;-)
>
>>
>> are there any plans to deal with this new reported data?
> No plan on my side at least, I just wrote this patch and the previous
> after discussing (on- and off-list), and that seemed very quick to do
> ;-)
>
>> if not, I’d welcome a switch on the script - so that one could at least elect
>> only to report new dups ..
> new dups as in "new dups compared to the list of dups of them previous run" ?
I think that there’s merit to always looking at changes for the worse (I suppose
these cannot be called exactly ‘regressions’) - so new dups since the last run,
yes.
The list of all dups is very useful to someone who plans to work through them
(or even the ones they feel responsible for) - but I’d say it’s value as a
constant reminder is much less …
> or just disable this new facility (and come back to the behaviour
> before my previous patch?
No, IMO, this is a great addition .. I think we need to fix these issues - dup
tests
make the sorting process much more fragile.
cheera
Iain
>
> Thanks,
>
> Christophe
>
>>
>> thanks
>> Iain
