This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: comparing DejaGNU results
> 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 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: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
FAIL: 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: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
compare_tests reported the following:
Tests that now fail, but worked before:
gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
:
Tests that now work, but didn't before:
gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors)
dg-cmp-results didn't report anything (at that verbosity) because
nothing had changed.
--
Jim Lemke jwlemke@wasabisystems.com Orillia, Ontario