After having a look at how pph.exp works last Friday I think I could do this myself easily enough.
Or are you still modifying the tests and want me to avoid touching this for now? Gab On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Lawrence Crowl <cr...@google.com> wrote: > On 7/1/11, Gabriel Charette <gch...@google.com> wrote: >> One problem now though: `// pph asm xdiff`, only flags for asm diffs, >> but those could be different diffs after a change (for the better or >> worse) and this won't be caught. It's probably hard to get something >> precise on this, but maybe we could simply add the # of lines of diff >> expected, e.g. `// pph asm xdiff 32`. Then we XFAIL if the number of >> expected lines in the diff match, but actually fail if the number of >> lines in the diff is now different. >> >> I'm not very familiar with dg.. Is that doable? Would be very helpful >> at this stage. > > That looks easy enough. I need to finish the current test stuff > before I get to that though. > > -- > Lawrence Crowl >