On 12/7/20 9:19 AM, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 12/4/20 3:17 PM, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/4/20 2:55 PM, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> On Nov 30, 2020, at 8:00 AM, Jeff Law via Gcc-patches
>>> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>>> This patch fixes a handful of tests with non-unique names which
>>>> confuse
>>>> the living hell out of compare_tests, particularly if one of two tests
>>>> [x]fail while the other is [x]pass which compare_tests will flag as a
>>>> regression each and every run.
>>> Thanks. The other way to fix the issue is to fix the tools so that
>>> they never fail. :-)
>> Yes, but either way tests should be unique.
>
> I know I introduced some (or even most) of these and I still have
> to change the strings and make them unique. What bothers me is
> that it's yet another unnecessary hoop for us to jump through.
> It's not documented anywhere that these things need to be unique,
> there's no tooling to detect when they're not, and it gets missed
> in code reviews. Why not instead change the test harness to do
> this for us?
A change to fix the test harness would certainly be appreciated. I'm a
much bigger fan of having tools catch this kind of thing than hoping a
reviewer remembers to look for it.
jeff
