On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 16:26 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Jun 2, 2006, at 11:08 AM, James Lemke wrote:
> > I took a quick pass at implementing the comparisons in a more suitable
> > lanugage. Run time is now a few seconds on both platforms. About the
> > same as compare_tests on my old ibook/OSX
On Jun 2, 2006, at 11:08 AM, James Lemke wrote:
I took a quick pass at implementing the comparisons in a more suitable
lanugage. Run time is now a few seconds on both platforms. About the
same as compare_tests on my old ibook/OSX and much faster on FC3.
Since Ben and I seem interested in this
I took a quick pass at implementing the comparisons in a more suitable
lanugage. Run time is now a few seconds on both platforms. About the
same as compare_tests on my old ibook/OSX and much faster on FC3.
Trials show the same results as before.
For anyone interested, the new version is attached
> > Both the results files I used contained the following ssequence of
> > results:
> > PASS: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
> > PASS: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
> > FAIL: g
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, James Lemke wrote:
> Both the results files I used contained the following ssequence of
> results:
> PASS: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
> PASS: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
> FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test
> Your approach is faster, esp. on Darwin / NetBSD.
> The only advantages I see to mine is handling variants (Richard's patch
> fixes that), verbosity control, and detail -- compare_tests only looks
> at X?(PASS|FAIL).
Hmm.. another small point, FWIW.
Both the results files I used contained the f
Whoops... I forgot to attach my fixes, for anyone that's interested.
--
Jim Lemke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Orillia, Ontario
--- dg-cmp-results.sh 2006/05/31 19:22:14 1.18
+++ dg-cmp-results.sh 2006/06/01 17:53:21
@@ -31,6 +31,16 @@ if test $# -ne 3 -o ! -f "$2" -o ! -f "$
exit 1
fi
+# Comman
> Please do. I'd welcome it (and scripts to generate html, to track
> known issues, to trim log files, to drive things and do on)... I
> think having a few different styles would be good, then people can
> try them all out and see which ones they like and why. Anyway, for
> me, it isn't
On Jun 1, 2006, at 1:45 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
The only problem I have with Mike's script is that it doesn't handle
runs with multiple multi-lib variants nicely.
Yeah, in the past, we drove the multilib pass from above as in
general we had to select different hardware for testing. I lik
On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 03:43, Mike Stump wrote:
> Mine was designed to do two things, figure out if the results are
> interesting and not send email, if they are not, and to show
> engineers the `interesting' detailed results in priority order. It's
> meant to be run daily, and on good days,
On May 31, 2006, at 11:13 AM, James Lemke wrote:
My current version is attached. If others find it useful I can
contribute it. Comments and suggestions are welcome.
Please do. I'd welcome it (and scripts to generate html, to track
known issues, to trim log files, to drive things and do on)
On May 31, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Ben Elliston wrote:
Don't we have a comparison script in the "contrib" subdirectory?
If that script does indeed work, then I'd like to distribute it with
DejaGnu.
Please. Yes, it does work and has been working just fine for the
past decade to decade and a half.
James Lemke wrote:
I wanted some mechanical way to compare the output of dejagnu runs
between releases, etc.
Did you look at contrib/compare_tests? It does something very similar
to what your script is doing.
--
Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.specifix.com
>
> > > I thought that Jeff Law had something that compared .sum files back when
> > > he was RM. The description of what you wrote sounds similar.
>
> > Don't we have a comparison script in the "contrib" subdirectory?
>
> If that script does indeed work, then I'd like to distribute it with
> D
> > I thought that Jeff Law had something that compared .sum files back when
> > he was RM. The description of what you wrote sounds similar.
> Don't we have a comparison script in the "contrib" subdirectory?
If that script does indeed work, then I'd like to distribute it with
DejaGnu. There us
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:33:29PM -0400, James Lemke wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 12:27 -0600, Jeffrey Law wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 11:25 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:13:44PM -0400, James Lemke wrote:
> > > > I wanted some mechanical way to compare the output o
On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 12:27 -0600, Jeffrey Law wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 11:25 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> > On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:13:44PM -0400, James Lemke wrote:
> > > I wanted some mechanical way to compare the output of dejagnu runs
> > > between releases, etc. I asked a few people at
On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 11:25 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:13:44PM -0400, James Lemke wrote:
> > I wanted some mechanical way to compare the output of dejagnu runs
> > between releases, etc. I asked a few people at the GCC Summit last year
> > what they used or knew about. No
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:13:44PM -0400, James Lemke wrote:
> I wanted some mechanical way to compare the output of dejagnu runs
> between releases, etc. I asked a few people at the GCC Summit last year
> what they used or knew about. Not much came to light, so I ended up
> writing something of
I wanted some mechanical way to compare the output of dejagnu runs
between releases, etc. I asked a few people at the GCC Summit last year
what they used or knew about. Not much came to light, so I ended up
writing something of my own.
It's a shell script I've been using on Linux with only trivi
20 matches
Mail list logo
