Re: [PATCH] PR52665 do not let .ident confuse assembler scan tests

[Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep dot dot dot nop at gmail dot com>]

On 19 June 2016 at 22:21, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2016, at 12:31 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> A branch with a name matching scan-assembler pattern triggers
>> inappropriate FAIL.
>
>> The patch below adds -fno-ident if a testcase contains one of
>> scan-assembler, scan-assembler-not or scan-assembler-times.
>
> Kinda gross.  I'd like to consensus build a little, as I don't know that I have a better solution than the solution you propose to fix the issue.  I'd love it if one or more of Jacob, Law and Richard can chime in on direction here.  I'll have to think about this some more and see if I can come up with something that I like better.
>
> If no one has a better solution, I'll approve the proposed solution.  Let's give people a little time to chime in.

Given the overwhelming silence this proposal has received, i take it
for granted that folks are thrilled and even up until now speechless
:)

So how should we proceed with -fno-ident.
And, btw, -fno-file to inhibit .file directives for the same reason,
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-09/msg01785.html and all our
ugly filenames like gcc.target/powerpc/swps-p8-36.c which strive to
workaround the assembler-scans.

All those non-automatic hacks like naming swap() tests swps-,
uglifying scan-patterns (which are not terribly straight forward to
read anyway even without uglifying them) are error prone and costly.
IMHO we should make sure time is spent for useful stuff and not be
wasted to fight our very own testsuite.

-fno-ident ok for stage1?
What about -fno-file? Clever alternative suggestions? Don't care?

thanks,