This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: make recheck?


On 10/10/2010 06:06 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
[ moving from gcc@ ]

* Diego Novillo wrote on Sat, Oct 02, 2010 at 06:44:09PM CEST:
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 05:54, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

Asking because it could help speed up patch development:
1) hack hack hack
2) make -k check-$whatever
3) go back to (1) until satisfactory
4) git commit patch, undo patch in work tree, rebuild
5) run 'make recheck' to ensure all new failures were already old.

This sounds like a great idea. You'd need to extract the FAIL lines from the .log file and backtrack to figure out which .exp file produced them. This would give you the input for RUNTESTFLAGS=f.exp=...

I don't recall if you can specify more than one file in the
RUNTESTFLAGS argument, though.

You can specify more than one file, but the parallel check rules broke passing quoted content, which is needed for passing more than one test name per .exp file.

This is useful anyway, so please apply.


it turned out that it was still ugly to get things in a Makefile rule,
so I ended up with an external script that doesn't yet use the make
rules (so strictly, the first patch is not yet needed, but will be at
some point).  It also has the advantage of working outside of the gcc
subdir.

You don't really need formal approval for changes in contrib/, so go ahead and commit it. You also won't need approval for further changes to test_recheck.


Paolo


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]