On Thu, Dec 18, 2025 at 09:15:04AM -0500, Nathan Sidwell wrote: > I find the 'body' and 'against' labelling on checking expected assembly to > be confusing. This labels them 'expected' and 'found', which I think is > much clearer.
Agreed - I actually posted my own patch to improve this logging last week: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2026-January/704723.html I kept "against" in that patch, but I think "found" would work just as well. Alice > > nathan > -- > Nathan Sidwell > From a3e854624b18cf614be5cd13fd3d3a3d2c727fdf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Nathan Sidwell <[email protected]> > Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2025 09:11:05 -0500 > Subject: [PATCH] Clarify functionn body mismatch > > Clearly label the expected and found function bodies. > > gcc/testsuite/ > * lib/scanasm.exp (check_function_body): Clarify mismatch labelling. > --- > gcc/testsuite/lib/scanasm.exp | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/lib/scanasm.exp b/gcc/testsuite/lib/scanasm.exp > index 75303912f23..adeffb1ae46 100644 > --- a/gcc/testsuite/lib/scanasm.exp > +++ b/gcc/testsuite/lib/scanasm.exp > @@ -983,8 +983,8 @@ proc check_function_body { functions name body_regexp } { > } > set fn_res [regexp "^$body_regexp\$" $up_functions($name)] > if { !$fn_res } { > - verbose -log "body: $body_regexp" > - verbose -log "against: $up_functions($name)" > + verbose -log "expected: $body_regexp" > + verbose -log "found: $up_functions($name)" > } > return $fn_res > } > -- > 2.51.1 >
