Re: Mirror gcc/contrib -> src/contrib? [was Re: [patch, gcc RFA] dg-extract-results.sh: Handle KFAILs.]
On Fri, 6 Apr 2012, Doug Evans wrote: > btw, is there any interest in mirroring gcc/contrib -> src/contrib? > [instead of gdb having its own copy in gdb/testsuite, it *could* use > the one in, e.g., src/contrib. I don't have a strong opinion. I'm > just looking for others opinions, as the topic came up in another > context.] Looking at gcc/contrib, there is a lot of stuff there which does not seem applicable to other projects. Not sure I'd just mirror all that... Gerald
Re: Mirror gcc/contrib -> src/contrib? [was Re: [patch, gcc RFA] dg-extract-results.sh: Handle KFAILs.]
On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: >> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: > > Doug> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Mike Stump > wroteDoug> btw, is there any interest in mirroring gcc/contrib -> src/contrib? > Doug> [instead of gdb having its own copy in gdb/testsuite, it *could* use > Doug> the one in, e.g., src/contrib. I don't have a strong opinion. I'm > Doug> just looking for others opinions, as the topic came up in another > Doug> context.] > > I wouldn't mind if anything else there was useful for gdb. There's testsuite-management/validate_failures.py which is useful here. Whether it's useful to the FSF or Redhat trees, I don't know. I can't put in the time to do all the administrivia to make this happen (and keep it working, e.g., impose something like making sure people follow the same rules as libiberty so the trees stay in sync), so I don't want to send people down this path unless there's sufficient support, and someone else to do the work.
Re: Mirror gcc/contrib -> src/contrib? [was Re: [patch, gcc RFA] dg-extract-results.sh: Handle KFAILs.]
> "Doug" == Doug Evans writes: Doug> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Mike Stump wroteDoug> btw, is there any interest in mirroring gcc/contrib -> src/contrib? Doug> [instead of gdb having its own copy in gdb/testsuite, it *could* use Doug> the one in, e.g., src/contrib. I don't have a strong opinion. I'm Doug> just looking for others opinions, as the topic came up in another Doug> context.] I wouldn't mind if anything else there was useful for gdb. Tom
Mirror gcc/contrib -> src/contrib? [was Re: [patch, gcc RFA] dg-extract-results.sh: Handle KFAILs.]
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Mike Stump wrote: > On Mar 15, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> Still, kfail is standard DejaGnu, not a GDB invention. It'd be nice not to >> need to fork the script for this. > > The change is fine for the gcc tree. Committed (to the gcc tree, already in gdb tree). Thanks. btw, is there any interest in mirroring gcc/contrib -> src/contrib? [instead of gdb having its own copy in gdb/testsuite, it *could* use the one in, e.g., src/contrib. I don't have a strong opinion. I'm just looking for others opinions, as the topic came up in another context.]
Re: [patch, gcc RFA] dg-extract-results.sh: Handle KFAILs.
On Mar 15, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > Still, kfail is standard DejaGnu, not a GDB invention. It'd be nice not to > need to fork the script for this. The change is fine for the gcc tree.
Re: [patch, gcc RFA] dg-extract-results.sh: Handle KFAILs.
On 03/14/2012 08:15 PM, Mike Stump wrote: > On Mar 14, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Doug Evans wrote: >> The results of running the testsuite in parallel should match the >> results when run serially. This patch adds KFAIL counts so that happens. >> [There's still a nit that the order of the results don't precisely match, >> but that's a separate issue.] >> >> I will check this into the gdb tree if there are no objections. >> Any reason not to apply it to the gcc tree as well? > > I don't know that the gcc tree has any of the known stuff, though, that's not > on purpose or by design, just no one has done it, I think. Still, kfail is standard DejaGnu, not a GDB invention. It'd be nice not to need to fork the script for this. -- Pedro Alves
Re: [patch, gcc RFA] dg-extract-results.sh: Handle KFAILs.
On Mar 14, 2012, at 10:21 AM, Doug Evans wrote: > The results of running the testsuite in parallel should match the > results when run serially. This patch adds KFAIL counts so that happens. > [There's still a nit that the order of the results don't precisely match, > but that's a separate issue.] > > I will check this into the gdb tree if there are no objections. > Any reason not to apply it to the gcc tree as well? I don't know that the gcc tree has any of the known stuff, though, that's not on purpose or by design, just no one has done it, I think.
[patch, gcc RFA] dg-extract-results.sh: Handle KFAILs.
The results of running the testsuite in parallel should match the
results when run serially. This patch adds KFAIL counts so that happens.
[There's still a nit that the order of the results don't precisely match,
but that's a separate issue.]
I will check this into the gdb tree if there are no objections.
Any reason not to apply it to the gcc tree as well?
2012-03-14 Doug Evans
* dg-extract-results.sh: Handle KFAILs.
Index: dg-extract-results.sh
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/dg-extract-results.sh,v
retrieving revision 1.4
diff -u -p -r1.4 dg-extract-results.sh
--- dg-extract-results.sh 4 Jan 2012 08:17:26 - 1.4
+++ dg-extract-results.sh 14 Mar 2012 17:15:07 -
@@ -345,7 +345,7 @@ EOF
BEGIN {
variant="$VAR"
tool="$TOOL"
- passcnt=0; failcnt=0; untstcnt=0; xpasscnt=0; xfailcnt=0; unsupcnt=0;
unrescnt=0;
+ passcnt=0; failcnt=0; untstcnt=0; xpasscnt=0; xfailcnt=0; kfailcnt=0;
unsupcnt=0; unrescnt=0;
curvar=""; insummary=0
}
/^Running target / { curvar = \$3; next }
@@ -354,6 +354,7 @@ BEGIN {
/^# of unexpected successes/ { if (insummary == 1) xpasscnt += \$5; next; }
/^# of unexpected failures/{ if (insummary == 1) failcnt += \$5; next; }
/^# of expected failures/ { if (insummary == 1) xfailcnt += \$5; next; }
+/^# of known failures/ { if (insummary == 1) kfailcnt += \$5; next; }
/^# of untested testcases/ { if (insummary == 1) untstcnt += \$5; next; }
/^# of unresolved testcases/ { if (insummary == 1) unrescnt += \$5; next; }
/^# of unsupported tests/ { if (insummary == 1) unsupcnt += \$5; next; }
@@ -368,6 +369,7 @@ END {
if (failcnt != 0) printf ("# of unexpected failures\t%d\n", failcnt)
if (xpasscnt != 0) printf ("# of unexpected successes\t%d\n", xpasscnt)
if (xfailcnt != 0) printf ("# of expected failures\t\t%d\n", xfailcnt)
+ if (kfailcnt != 0) printf ("# of known failures\t\t%d\n", kfailcnt)
if (untstcnt != 0) printf ("# of untested testcases\t\t%d\n", untstcnt)
if (unrescnt != 0) printf ("# of unresolved testcases\t%d\n", unrescnt)
if (unsupcnt != 0) printf ("# of unsupported tests\t\t%d\n", unsupcnt)
@@ -391,12 +393,13 @@ TOTAL_AWK=${TMP}/total.awk
cat << EOF > $TOTAL_AWK
BEGIN {
tool="$TOOL"
- passcnt=0; failcnt=0; untstcnt=0; xpasscnt=0; xfailcnt=0; unsupcnt=0;
unrescnt=0
+ passcnt=0; failcnt=0; untstcnt=0; xpasscnt=0; xfailcnt=0; kfailcnt=0;
unsupcnt=0; unrescnt=0
}
/^# of expected passes/{ passcnt += \$5 }
/^# of unexpected failures/{ failcnt += \$5 }
/^# of unexpected successes/ { xpasscnt += \$5 }
/^# of expected failures/ { xfailcnt += \$5 }
+/^# of known failures/ { kfailcnt += \$5 }
/^# of untested testcases/ { untstcnt += \$5 }
/^# of unresolved testcases/ { unrescnt += \$5 }
/^# of unsupported tests/ { unsupcnt += \$5 }
@@ -406,6 +409,7 @@ END {
if (failcnt != 0) printf ("# of unexpected failures\t%d\n", failcnt)
if (xpasscnt != 0) printf ("# of unexpected successes\t%d\n", xpasscnt)
if (xfailcnt != 0) printf ("# of expected failures\t\t%d\n", xfailcnt)
+ if (kfailcnt != 0) printf ("# of known failures\t\t%d\n", kfailcnt)
if (untstcnt != 0) printf ("# of untested testcases\t\t%d\n", untstcnt)
if (unrescnt != 0) printf ("# of unresolved testcases\t%d\n", unrescnt)
if (unsupcnt != 0) printf ("# of unsupported tests\t\t%d\n", unsupcnt)
