> -----Original Message----- > From: Aldy Hernandez [mailto:al...@redhat.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:09 AM > To: Iyer, Balaji V > Cc: Jakub Jelinek; Jeff Law; Joseph S. Myers; gcc-patches > Subject: Re: [patch] cilkplus array notation for C (clean, independent > patchset, > take 1) > > On 03/21/13 08:06, Iyer, Balaji V wrote: > >> > >> Balaji, please check the corresponding .sum files before and after > >> your patch to make sure that the same number of tests are being > >> tested. We have a nifty script in contrib/compare_tests for this task. > > > > That's how I verify it. (I grep for the ^FAIL in trunk and the applied > > branch and > make sure the output files are the same by going through it). Did I miss > anything? > > If you're using compare_tests, you should be fine. But just grepping for FAIL > won't do because there are tests that could have passed before, but are no > longer being tested, so they don't show up as a fail. I believe compare_tests > complains with "tests that used to pass but have disappeared" (or something > similar).
I first look at the expected passes, expected fails, etc. If those numbers match up, then I do what I said above . Otherwise I look at things that have failed that shouldn't and/or passed that shouldn't have (this, should almost never happen because all the Cilk plus related code are all enclosed between inside an if (flag_enable_cilkplus) statement). > > > > >> > >> And as Jakub has said, check (with and) without parallelization. > >> > > > > Yes, I am doing that also for the patch I am submitting. > > Thank you.