> On 10 Sep 2025, at 14:06, Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ]
> On 9/10/25 4:23 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>> 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.
>> are there any plans to deal with this new reported data?
>> if not, I’d welcome a switch on the script - so that one could at least elect
>> only to report new dups ..
> Yea. I need to go through my results as well, it was a bit overwhelming.
>
> Given the filename, opt flags and scan string are in the testname, it's a bit
> surprising to hear that the dg-finals are triggering :(
The most prolific cases are where there are several dg-final clauses in the same
test and they happen to be scanning for the same thing so, essentially, the
match
string is the same - and so are the other discriminators.
cheers
Iain
>
> jeff
