Re: RFC: Monitoring old PRs, new dg directives

[Marek Polacek <polacek@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 11:54:23AM +0200, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 05:44:47PM -0400, Marek Polacek via Gcc-patches wrote:
> > We will still have a surfeit of bugs that we've given short shrift to, but
> > let's at least automate what we can.  The initial addition of the relevant
> > old(-ish) tests won't of course happen automagically, but it's a price I'm
> > willing to pay.  My goal here isn't merely to reduce the number of open PRs;
> > it is to improve the testing of the compiler overall.
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> 
> Looks useful to me, but I'd think it might be desirable to use separate
> directories for those tests, so that it is more obvious that it is a
> different category of tests.  Now that we use git, just using git mv
> to move them to another place once they are fixed for good (together with
> some dg-* directive tweaks) wouldn't be that much work later.
> 
> So having gcc.dg/unfixed/ , g++.dg/unfixed/ , c-c++-common/unfixed/
> and their torture/ suffixed variants (or better directory name for those)?

Thanks.  I was afraid that it would cause too much friction when you happen
to fix one of the unfixed tests: you will have to find the correct directory
to put the test in and perhaps even rename the test to avoid conflicts with
tests with the same name in the final destination.  But it's also true that
git is much better at moving files, and the extra clarity might be worth the
occasional hassle.  It would also make it easy to skip testing unfixed tests.
dg-ice tests are easy to spot/grep for, but accepts-invalid/rejects-valid are
a different story.

I'll post a v2 patch soon with the unfixed/ dir in mind.

Marek