Providing more precise "excess errors" message in DejaGnu

[Christophe Lyon]

On Mon, 1 Sept 2025 at 11:37, Richard Earnshaw (lists)
<Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On 29/08/2025 14:48, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 at 11:35, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 29/08/2025 04:08, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
> >>> On 8/28/25 10:10, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>>> On 8/28/25 8:09 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote:
> >>>>> On 28/08/2025 15:01, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> >>>>>> [...]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well really, the compare-tests script should report duplicate results
> >>>>> as a problem as well, since
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PASS: abcd
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>> PASS: abcd
> >>>>>
> >>>>> is just a dup pass/fail waiting to happen.
> >>>> Yup.  A duplicate testname should be reported.  These cause major
> >>>> headaches if one passes, but the other fails -- it looks like a
> >>>> regression to the comparison scripting we have.
> >>>
> >>> The problem with detecting duplicate names in the DejaGnu framework is
> >>> that it would add memory overhead that scales with the number of tests
> >>> and DejaGnu tries to avoid that kind of unbounded space requirement.
> >>> (OK, it *is* bounded for any finite testsuite, but the idea of a
> >>> steadily growing memory footprint during a test run still bothers me.)
> >>>
> >>> I suggest that the comparison script GCC uses is probably the best place
> >>> to check for duplicate test names, since that seems to also be the
> >>> script that can be confused by them.
> >>>
> >>
> >> That's exactly what I was suggesting.  Trying to do it in dejagnu would
> >> be a nightmare given that we run multiple instances of it to get
> >> parallel testing.
> >>
> >
> > Which script do people use these days?  Here is a quick patch for
> > compare_tests, which actually detected duplicates ;-)
> >
> > I can commit that, if it helps.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Christophe
> >
> >> R.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> -- Jacob
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> > +uniq -c "$before_s" | grep -v '^      1 ' > "$before_u"
>
> uniq -dc "$before_s"
>
> will do that without needing the grep step and thus depending on the exact formatting of the count field; or you could drop the -c if you don't actually want the count for some other reason.
>

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll post a proper patch with an updated
version. I added the removal of empty lines before counting the
duplicates.

Thanks,

Christophe

> R.