What happened to the GCC 3.3 testsuite?

What happened to the GCC 3.3 testsuite?

[Andreas Jaeger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1519 bytes --]



Just compare these two summaries:

                === gcc Summary ===

# of expected passes            21248
# of unexpected failures        1
# of expected failures          69
# of unsupported tests          91
/builds/gcc/misc/gcc/xgcc version 3.3.3 20031208 (prerelease)

                === gcc Summary ===

# of expected passes            15165
# of expected failures          22
# of unsupported tests          1
/builds/gcc/misc/gcc/xgcc version 3.3.3 20031211 (prerelease)


Apparently 6000 tests have disappeared between these two days!


I see in the newer gcc.sum file at the end:
ERROR: (DejaGnu) proc "scan-file xwin1.i {(^|
)#if 0}" does not exist.

This seems to be related to:
2003-12-10  Nathanael Nerode  <neroden@gcc.gnu.org>

        Backport from mainline:
        * gcc.dg/cpp/trad/xwin1.c: New test case.


So, what's happening here?  Do we need to backport also the following
patch (from mainline):

2003-06-02  Mark Mitchell  <mark@codesourcery.com>

        * lib/scanasm.exp (dg-scan): New function, factored out of ...
        (scan-assembler): ... here.  Use dg-scan.
        (scan-assembler-not): Likewise.
        (scan-file): New function.
        (scan-file-not): Likewise.


Nathanael, can you look at these, please?

Cheers,
Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger, aj@suse.de, http://www.suse.de/~aj
  SuSE Linux AG, Deutschherrnstr. 15-19, 90429 Nürnberg, Germany
   GPG fingerprint = 93A3 365E CE47 B889 DF7F  FED1 389A 563C C272 A126

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]

Re: What happened to the GCC 3.3 testsuite?

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de> writes:

| I see in the newer gcc.sum file at the end:
| ERROR: (DejaGnu) proc "scan-file xwin1.i {(^|
| )#if 0}" does not exist.
| 
| This seems to be related to:
| 2003-12-10  Nathanael Nerode  <neroden@gcc.gnu.org>
| 
|         Backport from mainline:
|         * gcc.dg/cpp/trad/xwin1.c: New test case.
| 
| 
| So, what's happening here?  Do we need to backport also the following
| patch (from mainline):
| 
| 2003-06-02  Mark Mitchell  <mark@codesourcery.com>
| 
|         * lib/scanasm.exp (dg-scan): New function, factored out of ...
|         (scan-assembler): ... here.  Use dg-scan.
|         (scan-assembler-not): Likewise.
|         (scan-file): New function.
|         (scan-file-not): Likewise.
| 
| 
| Nathanael, can you look at these, please?


  Andreas, thanks for the spot.  Roger Sayle sent me a private note
about this.

  Nathanael, I approved the backport on the basis that you regtested
the patch. Can you help sort out this regression?

Thanks,

-- Gaby

Re: What happened to the GCC 3.3 testsuite?

[Nathanael Nerode]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de> writes:
> 
> | I see in the newer gcc.sum file at the end:
> | ERROR: (DejaGnu) proc "scan-file xwin1.i {(^|
> | )#if 0}" does not exist.
> | 
> | This seems to be related to:
> | 2003-12-10  Nathanael Nerode  <neroden@gcc.gnu.org>
> | 
> |         Backport from mainline:
> |         * gcc.dg/cpp/trad/xwin1.c: New test case.
> | 
> | 
> | So, what's happening here?  Do we need to backport also the following
> | patch (from mainline):
> | 
> | 2003-06-02  Mark Mitchell  <mark@codesourcery.com>
> | 
> |         * lib/scanasm.exp (dg-scan): New function, factored out of ...
> |         (scan-assembler): ... here.  Use dg-scan.
> |         (scan-assembler-not): Likewise.
> |         (scan-file): New function.
> |         (scan-file-not): Likewise.
> | 
> | 
> | Nathanael, can you look at these, please?
> 
> 
>   Andreas, thanks for the spot.  Roger Sayle sent me a private note
> about this.
> 
>   Nathanael, I approved the backport on the basis that you regtested
> the patch. Can you help sort out this regression?
Blech.  I tested the patch proper, but forgot to regtest the testcase!
I don't really understand this part of the testsuite very well.  For now 
I'm going to try just removing the testcase.  :-P


> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -- Gaby
>