This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: Don't include value of expression in pc-fp.exp test name
- From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- To: ac131313 at redhat dot com, carlton at kealia dot com
- Cc: fnasser at redhat dot com, gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com, jimb at redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 15:06:34 -0400
- Subject: Re: RFA: Don't include value of expression in pc-fp.exp test name
Andrew Cagney writes:
> Michael, you and I had an e-mail exchange about this very issue. The
> end result, last time, was no change.
Right. You think there's a convention about "(...)",
and I think there isn't. Neither of us has changed our minds.
Fact: there are 1500+ test names with "(...)" in them.
Question: do you think these test names are written incorrectly?
If so, do you have any suggestions for alternate ways to rewrite
test names such as:
# parentheses used for precedence
gdb.base/arithmet.exp: print x-(y+w)
gdb.base/arithmet.exp: print x/(y*w)
gdb.base/arithmet.exp: print x-(y/w)
gdb.base/arithmet.exp: print (x+y)*w
# parentheses used for function calls
gdb.base/call-ar-st.exp: print print_double_array(double_array)
gdb.base/call-ar-st.exp: print print_char_array(char_array)
gdb.base/call-ar-st.exp: print print_double_array(array_d)
gdb.base/call-ar-st.exp: print sum_array_print(10, *list1, *list2, *list3, *list4)
gdb.base/call-ar-st.exp: print print_array_rep(*list1, *list2, *list3)
# parentheses used for casts
gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: (const char)
gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: (const signed char)
gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: (const unsigned char)
gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: (const short)
gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: (const signed short)
gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: (const unsigned short)
gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: (const int)
gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: (const signed int)
gdb.base/cvexpr.exp: (const unsigned int)
I am really adamant on this question. Either "(...)" is legal to use
in test names and this line of your script is wrong:
gsub (/ *\([^)]*\)/, "", test)
Or "(...)" is not legal to use in test names and we have 100+ test scripts
which are buggy and need to be patched.
Which is it?
If you want to say that "// ..." is a way of adding information,
then I would be okay with that, because I don't have any results
with "// ..." in the test name.
> For instance sizeof.exp contains various tests to check that sizes are
> sane. The actual sizes found are included in the output. That's fine
> since if the numbers were to change between runs the test results are
> pretty sunk.
Sure, this part is fine.
Michael C