Re: [patch gas/testsuite SEH x64]: Some initial tests about SEH pseudo-operators

[Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@gmail.com>]

On 12/09/2010 16:39, Kai Tietz wrote:
> 2010/9/12 Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin:
>> On 12/09/2010 10:43, Kai Tietz wrote:

>>> this patch adds some x64 SEH related tests to gas' testsuite.

>>>           * /gas/pe/pe_seh.exp: New.

>>  Please let's not multiply expect scripts unnecessarily.  I can't think of
>> any reason not to just tag the "if ([istarget "x86_64-*-mingw*"])" clause onto
>> the end of the existing gas/pe/pe.exp, 

> Hmm, I think it is worth having here a separate .exp script. SEH is
> present for other PE-COFF targets, too. And so tests of features
> should be grouped IMHO.

  That is a non-sequitur.  Yes, SEH is present for other PE-COFF targets too,
but they could run the tests just the same regardless of whether those tests
are in the same .exp file or a separate one.

> What make you think that it is better to have just on giant .exp files
> containing everything unsorted?

  There's no need for it to be "unsorted"; tests within the file can still be
arranged into logical groups, and the whole thing formatted nicely.  Nor will
it be "giant"; there's only a few lines of tests in there already, so adding a
handful more won't make it giant.  (If we had hundreds of tests in there,
you'd have a point, but that's not going to happen any time in the foreseeable
future, so let's cross that bridge /if/ we come to it!)

  My advice is based on Alan's advice to me in an earlier thread(*):

> Yes, this was to avoid proliferation of .exp files.  More
> .exp files means slightly slower testsuite runs, for all targets.
> There isn't really any reason to put simple run_dump_test style tests
> in separate files.  You can select targets, set as and ld flags
> etc. all in their .d files.  I think the ideal is one main .exp file
> per directory to handle all the simple tests, with other .exp files as
> necessary for more complex tests, but it's not terribly important.

  Your new .exp file has 38 lines, of which all but 5 are an exact duplicate
of the contents of the existing pe.exp.  Redundancy is bad, and so is
redundancy!  This is why I can't see any value in having them in a separate file.

    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
(*) - http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2009-05/msg00263.html