This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [doc patch] describe test directives in internals manual
Thanks for your review, Gerald. New proposed text follows each of your
comments. It was difficult explaining some of these directives, but I'm
willing to try again if some of them still aren't clear.
Please let me know if I used any formatting commands incorrectly.
On Sat, Jan 15, 2005 at 08:23:14PM +0100, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2005, Janis Johnson wrote:
> > 2005-01-11 Janis Johnson <janis187@us.ibm.com>
> > Giovanni Bajo <giovannibajo@gcc.gnu.org>
> >
> > * doc/sourcebuild.texi (Test Directives): New.
>
> I believe Mark already approved this, so I just provide a comment or two.
>
> > Index: doc/sourcebuild.texi
> > ===================================================================
[snip]
>
> > +Effective-target keywords are defined in @file{target-supports.exp} in
> > +the GCC testsuite or, in the case of unusual effective targets that are
> > +used only for a limited number of tests, in local @file{.exp} files.
>
> "local" here means "in the current directory"?
+the GCC testsuite or, in the case of unusual effective targets that are
+used only for a limited number of tests, in @file{.exp} files in the
+same directory as the tests. There is no mechanism to combine or negate
+effective-target keywords.
> > +@table @code
> > +@item @{ dg-do @var{do-what-keyword} [@{ target/xfail @var{selector} @}] @}
> > +This DejaGnu directive must appear before test directives that are
> > +defined within the GCC test framework.
>
> Isn't this redundant with the general rule of having DejaGnu directives
> before GCC directives?
Yes, I'll remove it.
> > +Produce and run an executable file, expected to exit with 0.
>
> "expected to terminate with exit code 0" or "return an exit code of 0",
> or something along these lines?
+Produce and run an executable file, which is expected to return
+an exit code of 0.
> > +@item @{ dg-skip-if @var{comment} @{ @var{selector} @} @{ @var{include-opts} @} @{ @var{exclude-opts} @} @}
> > +Skip the test if the test system is included in @var{selector} and
> > +each of the options in @var{include-opts} will be used to compile the
> > +test and none of the options in @var{exclude-opts} will be used to
> > +compile the test.
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand this one. How is the relation between
> selector and include-opts/exclude-opts?
>
> "would" instead of "will", perhaps?
+Skip the test if the test system is included in @var{selector} and if
+each of the options in @var{include-opts} is in the set of options with
+which the test would be compiled and if none of the options in
+@var{exclude-opts} is in the set of options with which the test would be
+compiled.
> > +@item @{ dg-excess-errors @var{comment} [@{ target/xfail @var{selector} @}] @}
> > +This DejaGnu directive indicates that error messages not specified by
> > +other directives are expected somewhere in the test.
>
> That is, they need to occur? Or is this a weaker condition, and they
> may occur and will be ignored in this case?
+This DejaGnu directive indicates that the test is expected to fail due
+to compiler messages that are not handled by @option{dg-error},
+@option{dg-warning} or @option{dg-bogus}.
Janis