Re: Dejagnu profiler problems (was: Committed: Tweak testsuite forMMIX.)

[Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>]

On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
>  > From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
>  > For some reason the same trivial change *won't* fix:
>  > FAIL: gcc.dg/nest.c (test for excess errors)
>  > Why?  Is there a DejaGNU expert in the house?

>  > + /* { dg-build "profiler" "No profiler support" { xfail mmix-*-* } } */

> The problem is that dg-build doesn't accept a linenum argument!

Because it's not supposed to look at the line number.

>  I'm
> using dejagnu-20010126 from our ftp infrastructure directory,

I should have mentioned I used the dejagnu in the
sources.redhat.com repo, which IIRC was synced a few months ago.

> So your dg-build command only works if you happen to place it on the
> line number where the error message appears (and no one editing the
> testcase ever moves it in the future.)  You must have gotten lucky for
> 20021014-1.c and happened to put it on the right line, but didn't
> happen to get it on the right line for nest.c.  This is annoying and
> delicate and IMO unworkable.

To avoid such guesses, I should have mentioned that the lines
don't match.  The error happens on line 13 for 20021014-1.c and
line 9 for nest.c (with the above markers in place).  Sorry for
ruining your theory.  Still, it might be a one-digit vs.
two-digit-problem with the line-numbers...

> ...
> The problem is that after all that you'll still get a WARNING:
> message in your testresults about the executable not being created.
> "WARNING: gcc.dg/20021014-1.c compilation failed to produce executable"

Yes, but at least it doesn't fail. :-)

> I'm definitely open to suggestions on this one.

Ditto.

> <FLAME>
> I've always thought dejagnu was an annoyingly opaque and difficult
> tool to use.  I get more convinced every time I have the misfortune of
> having to dig into it further. :-(
> </FLAME>

For the record, this dg-* thingy is something that can be
replaced if not extended.  I don't really agree with the flame,
but I agree DejaGNU could really be documented better.  (I
always look at dg.exp for the essential information.)

brgds, H-P