[PATCH] gdb/testsuite: handle invalid .exp names passed in TESTS

[PATCH] gdb/testsuite: handle invalid .exp names passed in TESTS

[Andrew Burgess]

I ran some tests like:

  $ make check-gdb TESTS="gdb.base/break.exp"

then, then I went to rerun the tests later, I managed to corrupt the
command line, like this:

  $ make check-gdb TESTS="gdb.base/breakff.exp"

the make command did exit with an error, but DejaGnu appeared to
report that every test passed!  The tail end of the output looks like
this:

  Illegal Argument "no-matching-tests-found"
  try "runtest --help" for option list
  		=== gdb Summary ===

  # of expected passes		115
  /tmp/build/gdb/gdb version  13.0.50.20220831-git -nw -nx -iex "set height 0" -iex "set width 0" -data-directory /tmp/build/gdb/testsuite/../data-directory

  make[3]: *** [Makefile:212: check-single] Error 1
  make[3]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb/testsuite'
  make[2]: *** [Makefile:161: check] Error 2
  make[2]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb/testsuite'
  make[1]: *** [Makefile:1916: check] Error 2
  make[1]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb'
  make: *** [Makefile:13565: check-gdb] Error 2

For a while, I didn't spot that DejaGnu had failed at all, I saw the
115 passes, and thought everything had run correctly - though I was
puzzled that make was reporting an error.

What happens is that in gdb/testsuite/Makefile, in the check-single
rule, we first run DejaGnu, then run the dg-add-core-file-count.sh
script, and finally, we use sed to extract the results from the
gdb.sum file.

In my case, with the invalid test name, DejaGnu fails, but the
following steps are still run, the final result, the 115 passes, is
then extracted from the pre-existing gdb.sum file.

If I use 'make -jN' then the 'check-parallel' rule, rather than the
'check-single' rule is used.  In this case the behaviour is slightly
different, the tail end of the output now looks like this:

  No matching tests found.

  make[4]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb/testsuite'
  find: ‘outputs’: No such file or directory
  Usage: ../../../src/gdb/testsuite/../../contrib/dg-extract-results.py [-t tool] [-l variant-list] [-L] log-or-sum-file ...

      tool           The tool (e.g. g++, libffi) for which to create a
                     new test summary file.  If not specified then output
                     is created for all tools.
      variant-list   One or more test variant names.  If the list is
                     not specified then one is constructed from all
                     variants in the files for <tool>.
      sum-file       A test summary file with the format of those
                     created by runtest from DejaGnu.
      If -L is used, merge *.log files instead of *.sum.  In this
      mode the exact order of lines may not be preserved, just different
      Running *.exp chunks should be in correct order.
  find: ‘outputs’: No such file or directory
  Usage: ../../../src/gdb/testsuite/../../contrib/dg-extract-results.py [-t tool] [-l variant-list] [-L] log-or-sum-file ...

      tool           The tool (e.g. g++, libffi) for which to create a
                     new test summary file.  If not specified then output
                     is created for all tools.
      variant-list   One or more test variant names.  If the list is
                     not specified then one is constructed from all
                     variants in the files for <tool>.
      sum-file       A test summary file with the format of those
                     created by runtest from DejaGnu.
      If -L is used, merge *.log files instead of *.sum.  In this
      mode the exact order of lines may not be preserved, just different
      Running *.exp chunks should be in correct order.
  make[3]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb/testsuite'
  make[2]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb/testsuite'
  make[1]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb'

Rather than DejaGnu failing, we now get a nice 'No matching tests
found' message, followed by some other noise.  This other noise is
first `find` failing, followed by the dg-extract-results.py script
failing.

What happens here is that, in the check-parallel rule, the outputs
directory is deleted before DejaGnu is invoked.  Then we try to run
all the tests, and finally we use find and dg-extract-results.py to
combine all the separate .sun and .log files together.  However, if
there are no tests run then the outputs/ directory is never created,
so the find command and consequently the dg-extract-results.py script,
fail.

This commit aims to fix the following issues:

 (1) For check-single and check-parallel rules, don't run any of the
 post-processing steps if DejaGnu failed to run.  This will avoid all
 the noise after the initial failure of DejaGnu,

 (2) For check-single ensure that we don't accidentally report
 previous results, this is related to the above, but is worth calling
 out as a separate point, and

 (3) For check-single, print the 'No matching tests found' message
 just like we do for a parallel test run.  This makes the parallel and
 non-parallel testing behaviour more similar, and I think is clearer
 than the current 'Illegal Argument' error message.

Points (1) and (2) will be handled by moving the post processing steps
inside an if block within the recipe.  For check-single I propose
deleting the gdb.sum and gdb.log files before running DejaGnu, this is
similar (I think) to how we delete the outputs/ directory in the
check-parallel rule.

For point (3) I plan to split the check-single rule in two, the
existing check-single will be renamed do-check-single, then a new
check-single rule will be added.  The new check-single rule can either
depend on the new do-check-single, or will ensure the 'No matching
tests found' message is printed when appropriate.
---
 gdb/testsuite/Makefile.in | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/Makefile.in b/gdb/testsuite/Makefile.in
index 87ba522c9e0..49b8a60a35c 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/Makefile.in
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/Makefile.in
@@ -203,18 +203,36 @@ expanded_tests := $(patsubst $(srcdir)/%,%,$(wildcard $(addprefix $(srcdir)/,$(T
 expanded_tests_or_none := $(or $(expanded_tests),no-matching-tests-found)
 endif
 
+# With check-single, if TESTS was expanded to "no-matching-tests-found" then
+# this will be passed to DejaGnu, resuling in an error.  With check-parallel
+# in the same situation, we avoid invoking DejaGnu, and instead just call
+# the check/no-matching-tests-found rule (which prints a helpful message).
+#
+# To get the same behaviour for check-single we decide here, based on how
+# TESTS expanded, whether check-single should redirect to do-check-single or
+# to check/no-matching-tests-found.
+ifeq ($(expanded_tests_or_none),no-matching-tests-found)
+CHECK_SINGLE_DEP=check/no-matching-tests-found
+else
+CHECK_SINGLE_DEP=do-check-single
+endif
+
 # Shorthand for running all the tests in a single directory.
 check-gdb.%:
 	$(MAKE) check TESTS="gdb.$*/*.exp"
 
-check-single:
-	-rm -f *core*
+do-check-single:
+	-rm -f *core* gdb.sum gdb.log
 	$(DO_RUNTEST) $(RUNTESTFLAGS) $(expanded_tests_or_none) $(TIMESTAMP); \
 	result=$$?; \
-	$(SHELL) $(srcdir)/lib/dg-add-core-file-count.sh; \
-	sed -n '/=== gdb Summary ===/,$$ p' gdb.sum; \
+	if test -e gdb.sum; then \
+	  $(SHELL) $(srcdir)/lib/dg-add-core-file-count.sh; \
+	  sed -n '/=== gdb Summary ===/,$$ p' gdb.sum; \
+	fi; \
 	exit $$result
 
+check-single: $(CHECK_SINGLE_DEP)
+
 check-single-racy:
 	-rm -rf cache racy_outputs temp
 	mkdir -p racy_outputs; \
@@ -240,12 +258,14 @@ check-parallel:
 	-rm -rf cache outputs temp
 	$(MAKE) -k do-check-parallel; \
 	result=$$?; \
-	$(SHELL) $(srcdir)/../../contrib/dg-extract-results.sh \
-	  `find outputs -name gdb.sum -print` > gdb.sum; \
-	$(SHELL) $(srcdir)/../../contrib/dg-extract-results.sh -L \
-	  `find outputs -name gdb.log -print` > gdb.log; \
-	$(SHELL) $(srcdir)/lib/dg-add-core-file-count.sh; \
-	sed -n '/=== gdb Summary ===/,$$ p' gdb.sum; \
+	if test -d outputs; then \
+	  $(SHELL) $(srcdir)/../../contrib/dg-extract-results.sh \
+	    `find outputs -name gdb.sum -print` > gdb.sum; \
+	  $(SHELL) $(srcdir)/../../contrib/dg-extract-results.sh -L \
+	    `find outputs -name gdb.log -print` > gdb.log; \
+	  $(SHELL) $(srcdir)/lib/dg-add-core-file-count.sh; \
+	  sed -n '/=== gdb Summary ===/,$$ p' gdb.sum; \
+	fi; \
 	exit $$result
 
 check-parallel-racy:
-- 
2.25.4

Re: [PATCH] gdb/testsuite: handle invalid .exp names passed in TESTS

[Bruno Larsen]

Hi Andrew,

Once again, very well timed patch as I had just noticed this problem! 
Other than a typo (response inlined), my only comment is that, since you 
are already renaming check-single, what do you think about renaming to 
check-single-thread or check-sequential?

My reasoning is that when first reading the message and diff, I thought 
this rule would test a single test, which left me confused for a minute.

Either way, I like the patch, and encourage you to approve it!

-- 
Cheers,
Bruno

On 10/09/2022 18:43, Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches wrote:
> I ran some tests like:
>
>    $ make check-gdb TESTS="gdb.base/break.exp"
>
> then, then I went to rerun the tests later, I managed to corrupt the
> command line, like this:
>
>    $ make check-gdb TESTS="gdb.base/breakff.exp"
>
> the make command did exit with an error, but DejaGnu appeared to
> report that every test passed!  The tail end of the output looks like
> this:
>
>    Illegal Argument "no-matching-tests-found"
>    try "runtest --help" for option list
>    		=== gdb Summary ===
>
>    # of expected passes		115
>    /tmp/build/gdb/gdb version  13.0.50.20220831-git -nw -nx -iex "set height 0" -iex "set width 0" -data-directory /tmp/build/gdb/testsuite/../data-directory
>
>    make[3]: *** [Makefile:212: check-single] Error 1
>    make[3]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb/testsuite'
>    make[2]: *** [Makefile:161: check] Error 2
>    make[2]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb/testsuite'
>    make[1]: *** [Makefile:1916: check] Error 2
>    make[1]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb'
>    make: *** [Makefile:13565: check-gdb] Error 2
>
> For a while, I didn't spot that DejaGnu had failed at all, I saw the
> 115 passes, and thought everything had run correctly - though I was
> puzzled that make was reporting an error.
>
> What happens is that in gdb/testsuite/Makefile, in the check-single
> rule, we first run DejaGnu, then run the dg-add-core-file-count.sh
> script, and finally, we use sed to extract the results from the
> gdb.sum file.
>
> In my case, with the invalid test name, DejaGnu fails, but the
> following steps are still run, the final result, the 115 passes, is
> then extracted from the pre-existing gdb.sum file.
>
> If I use 'make -jN' then the 'check-parallel' rule, rather than the
> 'check-single' rule is used.  In this case the behaviour is slightly
> different, the tail end of the output now looks like this:
>
>    No matching tests found.
>
>    make[4]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb/testsuite'
>    find: ‘outputs’: No such file or directory
>    Usage: ../../../src/gdb/testsuite/../../contrib/dg-extract-results.py [-t tool] [-l variant-list] [-L] log-or-sum-file ...
>
>        tool           The tool (e.g. g++, libffi) for which to create a
>                       new test summary file.  If not specified then output
>                       is created for all tools.
>        variant-list   One or more test variant names.  If the list is
>                       not specified then one is constructed from all
>                       variants in the files for <tool>.
>        sum-file       A test summary file with the format of those
>                       created by runtest from DejaGnu.
>        If -L is used, merge *.log files instead of *.sum.  In this
>        mode the exact order of lines may not be preserved, just different
>        Running *.exp chunks should be in correct order.
>    find: ‘outputs’: No such file or directory
>    Usage: ../../../src/gdb/testsuite/../../contrib/dg-extract-results.py [-t tool] [-l variant-list] [-L] log-or-sum-file ...
>
>        tool           The tool (e.g. g++, libffi) for which to create a
>                       new test summary file.  If not specified then output
>                       is created for all tools.
>        variant-list   One or more test variant names.  If the list is
>                       not specified then one is constructed from all
>                       variants in the files for <tool>.
>        sum-file       A test summary file with the format of those
>                       created by runtest from DejaGnu.
>        If -L is used, merge *.log files instead of *.sum.  In this
>        mode the exact order of lines may not be preserved, just different
>        Running *.exp chunks should be in correct order.
>    make[3]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb/testsuite'
>    make[2]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb/testsuite'
>    make[1]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb'
>
> Rather than DejaGnu failing, we now get a nice 'No matching tests
> found' message, followed by some other noise.  This other noise is
> first `find` failing, followed by the dg-extract-results.py script
> failing.
>
> What happens here is that, in the check-parallel rule, the outputs
> directory is deleted before DejaGnu is invoked.  Then we try to run
> all the tests, and finally we use find and dg-extract-results.py to
> combine all the separate .sun
.sum*
> and .log files together.  However, if
> there are no tests run then the outputs/ directory is never created,
> so the find command and consequently the dg-extract-results.py script,
> fail.
>
> This commit aims to fix the following issues:
>
>   (1) For check-single and check-parallel rules, don't run any of the
>   post-processing steps if DejaGnu failed to run.  This will avoid all
>   the noise after the initial failure of DejaGnu,
>
>   (2) For check-single ensure that we don't accidentally report
>   previous results, this is related to the above, but is worth calling
>   out as a separate point, and
>
>   (3) For check-single, print the 'No matching tests found' message
>   just like we do for a parallel test run.  This makes the parallel and
>   non-parallel testing behaviour more similar, and I think is clearer
>   than the current 'Illegal Argument' error message.
>
> Points (1) and (2) will be handled by moving the post processing steps
> inside an if block within the recipe.  For check-single I propose
> deleting the gdb.sum and gdb.log files before running DejaGnu, this is
> similar (I think) to how we delete the outputs/ directory in the
> check-parallel rule.
>
> For point (3) I plan to split the check-single rule in two, the
> existing check-single will be renamed do-check-single, then a new
> check-single rule will be added.  The new check-single rule can either
> depend on the new do-check-single, or will ensure the 'No matching
> tests found' message is printed when appropriate.
> ---
>   gdb/testsuite/Makefile.in | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>   1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/Makefile.in b/gdb/testsuite/Makefile.in
> index 87ba522c9e0..49b8a60a35c 100644
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/Makefile.in
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/Makefile.in
> @@ -203,18 +203,36 @@ expanded_tests := $(patsubst $(srcdir)/%,%,$(wildcard $(addprefix $(srcdir)/,$(T
>   expanded_tests_or_none := $(or $(expanded_tests),no-matching-tests-found)
>   endif
>   
> +# With check-single, if TESTS was expanded to "no-matching-tests-found" then
> +# this will be passed to DejaGnu, resuling in an error.  With check-parallel
> +# in the same situation, we avoid invoking DejaGnu, and instead just call
> +# the check/no-matching-tests-found rule (which prints a helpful message).
> +#
> +# To get the same behaviour for check-single we decide here, based on how
> +# TESTS expanded, whether check-single should redirect to do-check-single or
> +# to check/no-matching-tests-found.
> +ifeq ($(expanded_tests_or_none),no-matching-tests-found)
> +CHECK_SINGLE_DEP=check/no-matching-tests-found
> +else
> +CHECK_SINGLE_DEP=do-check-single
> +endif
> +
>   # Shorthand for running all the tests in a single directory.
>   check-gdb.%:
>   	$(MAKE) check TESTS="gdb.$*/*.exp"
>   
> -check-single:
> -	-rm -f *core*
> +do-check-single:
> +	-rm -f *core* gdb.sum gdb.log
>   	$(DO_RUNTEST) $(RUNTESTFLAGS) $(expanded_tests_or_none) $(TIMESTAMP); \
>   	result=$$?; \
> -	$(SHELL) $(srcdir)/lib/dg-add-core-file-count.sh; \
> -	sed -n '/=== gdb Summary ===/,$$ p' gdb.sum; \
> +	if test -e gdb.sum; then \
> +	  $(SHELL) $(srcdir)/lib/dg-add-core-file-count.sh; \
> +	  sed -n '/=== gdb Summary ===/,$$ p' gdb.sum; \
> +	fi; \
>   	exit $$result
>   
> +check-single: $(CHECK_SINGLE_DEP)
> +
>   check-single-racy:
>   	-rm -rf cache racy_outputs temp
>   	mkdir -p racy_outputs; \
> @@ -240,12 +258,14 @@ check-parallel:
>   	-rm -rf cache outputs temp
>   	$(MAKE) -k do-check-parallel; \
>   	result=$$?; \
> -	$(SHELL) $(srcdir)/../../contrib/dg-extract-results.sh \
> -	  `find outputs -name gdb.sum -print` > gdb.sum; \
> -	$(SHELL) $(srcdir)/../../contrib/dg-extract-results.sh -L \
> -	  `find outputs -name gdb.log -print` > gdb.log; \
> -	$(SHELL) $(srcdir)/lib/dg-add-core-file-count.sh; \
> -	sed -n '/=== gdb Summary ===/,$$ p' gdb.sum; \
> +	if test -d outputs; then \
> +	  $(SHELL) $(srcdir)/../../contrib/dg-extract-results.sh \
> +	    `find outputs -name gdb.sum -print` > gdb.sum; \
> +	  $(SHELL) $(srcdir)/../../contrib/dg-extract-results.sh -L \
> +	    `find outputs -name gdb.log -print` > gdb.log; \
> +	  $(SHELL) $(srcdir)/lib/dg-add-core-file-count.sh; \
> +	  sed -n '/=== gdb Summary ===/,$$ p' gdb.sum; \
> +	fi; \
>   	exit $$result
>   
>   check-parallel-racy:

Re: [PATCH] gdb/testsuite: handle invalid .exp names passed in TESTS

[Andrew Burgess]

Bruno Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com> writes:

> Hi Andrew,
>
> Once again, very well timed patch as I had just noticed this problem! 
> Other than a typo (response inlined), my only comment is that, since you 
> are already renaming check-single, what do you think about renaming to 
> check-single-thread or check-sequential?

Except I'm not really renaming check-single.  I'm adding a dependency to
check-single, and replacing the recipe for check-single.  But
check-single itself continues to exist just as it did before.

I'm not against renaming check-single to something else, but I think it
should probably be done as a separate patch with its own justification.

> My reasoning is that when first reading the message and diff, I thought 
> this rule would test a single test, which left me confused for a minute.

I can see that.

>
> Either way, I like the patch, and encourage you to approve it!

I'll give this a little longer to see if anyone else has any thoughts,
then I'll merge it.

Thanks,
Andrew


>
> -- 
> Cheers,
> Bruno
>
> On 10/09/2022 18:43, Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches wrote:
>> I ran some tests like:
>>
>>    $ make check-gdb TESTS="gdb.base/break.exp"
>>
>> then, then I went to rerun the tests later, I managed to corrupt the
>> command line, like this:
>>
>>    $ make check-gdb TESTS="gdb.base/breakff.exp"
>>
>> the make command did exit with an error, but DejaGnu appeared to
>> report that every test passed!  The tail end of the output looks like
>> this:
>>
>>    Illegal Argument "no-matching-tests-found"
>>    try "runtest --help" for option list
>>    		=== gdb Summary ===
>>
>>    # of expected passes		115
>>    /tmp/build/gdb/gdb version  13.0.50.20220831-git -nw -nx -iex "set height 0" -iex "set width 0" -data-directory /tmp/build/gdb/testsuite/../data-directory
>>
>>    make[3]: *** [Makefile:212: check-single] Error 1
>>    make[3]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb/testsuite'
>>    make[2]: *** [Makefile:161: check] Error 2
>>    make[2]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb/testsuite'
>>    make[1]: *** [Makefile:1916: check] Error 2
>>    make[1]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb'
>>    make: *** [Makefile:13565: check-gdb] Error 2
>>
>> For a while, I didn't spot that DejaGnu had failed at all, I saw the
>> 115 passes, and thought everything had run correctly - though I was
>> puzzled that make was reporting an error.
>>
>> What happens is that in gdb/testsuite/Makefile, in the check-single
>> rule, we first run DejaGnu, then run the dg-add-core-file-count.sh
>> script, and finally, we use sed to extract the results from the
>> gdb.sum file.
>>
>> In my case, with the invalid test name, DejaGnu fails, but the
>> following steps are still run, the final result, the 115 passes, is
>> then extracted from the pre-existing gdb.sum file.
>>
>> If I use 'make -jN' then the 'check-parallel' rule, rather than the
>> 'check-single' rule is used.  In this case the behaviour is slightly
>> different, the tail end of the output now looks like this:
>>
>>    No matching tests found.
>>
>>    make[4]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb/testsuite'
>>    find: ‘outputs’: No such file or directory
>>    Usage: ../../../src/gdb/testsuite/../../contrib/dg-extract-results.py [-t tool] [-l variant-list] [-L] log-or-sum-file ...
>>
>>        tool           The tool (e.g. g++, libffi) for which to create a
>>                       new test summary file.  If not specified then output
>>                       is created for all tools.
>>        variant-list   One or more test variant names.  If the list is
>>                       not specified then one is constructed from all
>>                       variants in the files for <tool>.
>>        sum-file       A test summary file with the format of those
>>                       created by runtest from DejaGnu.
>>        If -L is used, merge *.log files instead of *.sum.  In this
>>        mode the exact order of lines may not be preserved, just different
>>        Running *.exp chunks should be in correct order.
>>    find: ‘outputs’: No such file or directory
>>    Usage: ../../../src/gdb/testsuite/../../contrib/dg-extract-results.py [-t tool] [-l variant-list] [-L] log-or-sum-file ...
>>
>>        tool           The tool (e.g. g++, libffi) for which to create a
>>                       new test summary file.  If not specified then output
>>                       is created for all tools.
>>        variant-list   One or more test variant names.  If the list is
>>                       not specified then one is constructed from all
>>                       variants in the files for <tool>.
>>        sum-file       A test summary file with the format of those
>>                       created by runtest from DejaGnu.
>>        If -L is used, merge *.log files instead of *.sum.  In this
>>        mode the exact order of lines may not be preserved, just different
>>        Running *.exp chunks should be in correct order.
>>    make[3]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb/testsuite'
>>    make[2]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb/testsuite'
>>    make[1]: Leaving directory '/tmp/build/gdb'
>>
>> Rather than DejaGnu failing, we now get a nice 'No matching tests
>> found' message, followed by some other noise.  This other noise is
>> first `find` failing, followed by the dg-extract-results.py script
>> failing.
>>
>> What happens here is that, in the check-parallel rule, the outputs
>> directory is deleted before DejaGnu is invoked.  Then we try to run
>> all the tests, and finally we use find and dg-extract-results.py to
>> combine all the separate .sun
> .sum*
>> and .log files together.  However, if
>> there are no tests run then the outputs/ directory is never created,
>> so the find command and consequently the dg-extract-results.py script,
>> fail.
>>
>> This commit aims to fix the following issues:
>>
>>   (1) For check-single and check-parallel rules, don't run any of the
>>   post-processing steps if DejaGnu failed to run.  This will avoid all
>>   the noise after the initial failure of DejaGnu,
>>
>>   (2) For check-single ensure that we don't accidentally report
>>   previous results, this is related to the above, but is worth calling
>>   out as a separate point, and
>>
>>   (3) For check-single, print the 'No matching tests found' message
>>   just like we do for a parallel test run.  This makes the parallel and
>>   non-parallel testing behaviour more similar, and I think is clearer
>>   than the current 'Illegal Argument' error message.
>>
>> Points (1) and (2) will be handled by moving the post processing steps
>> inside an if block within the recipe.  For check-single I propose
>> deleting the gdb.sum and gdb.log files before running DejaGnu, this is
>> similar (I think) to how we delete the outputs/ directory in the
>> check-parallel rule.
>>
>> For point (3) I plan to split the check-single rule in two, the
>> existing check-single will be renamed do-check-single, then a new
>> check-single rule will be added.  The new check-single rule can either
>> depend on the new do-check-single, or will ensure the 'No matching
>> tests found' message is printed when appropriate.
>> ---
>>   gdb/testsuite/Makefile.in | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>>   1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/Makefile.in b/gdb/testsuite/Makefile.in
>> index 87ba522c9e0..49b8a60a35c 100644
>> --- a/gdb/testsuite/Makefile.in
>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/Makefile.in
>> @@ -203,18 +203,36 @@ expanded_tests := $(patsubst $(srcdir)/%,%,$(wildcard $(addprefix $(srcdir)/,$(T
>>   expanded_tests_or_none := $(or $(expanded_tests),no-matching-tests-found)
>>   endif
>>   
>> +# With check-single, if TESTS was expanded to "no-matching-tests-found" then
>> +# this will be passed to DejaGnu, resuling in an error.  With check-parallel
>> +# in the same situation, we avoid invoking DejaGnu, and instead just call
>> +# the check/no-matching-tests-found rule (which prints a helpful message).
>> +#
>> +# To get the same behaviour for check-single we decide here, based on how
>> +# TESTS expanded, whether check-single should redirect to do-check-single or
>> +# to check/no-matching-tests-found.
>> +ifeq ($(expanded_tests_or_none),no-matching-tests-found)
>> +CHECK_SINGLE_DEP=check/no-matching-tests-found
>> +else
>> +CHECK_SINGLE_DEP=do-check-single
>> +endif
>> +
>>   # Shorthand for running all the tests in a single directory.
>>   check-gdb.%:
>>   	$(MAKE) check TESTS="gdb.$*/*.exp"
>>   
>> -check-single:
>> -	-rm -f *core*
>> +do-check-single:
>> +	-rm -f *core* gdb.sum gdb.log
>>   	$(DO_RUNTEST) $(RUNTESTFLAGS) $(expanded_tests_or_none) $(TIMESTAMP); \
>>   	result=$$?; \
>> -	$(SHELL) $(srcdir)/lib/dg-add-core-file-count.sh; \
>> -	sed -n '/=== gdb Summary ===/,$$ p' gdb.sum; \
>> +	if test -e gdb.sum; then \
>> +	  $(SHELL) $(srcdir)/lib/dg-add-core-file-count.sh; \
>> +	  sed -n '/=== gdb Summary ===/,$$ p' gdb.sum; \
>> +	fi; \
>>   	exit $$result
>>   
>> +check-single: $(CHECK_SINGLE_DEP)
>> +
>>   check-single-racy:
>>   	-rm -rf cache racy_outputs temp
>>   	mkdir -p racy_outputs; \
>> @@ -240,12 +258,14 @@ check-parallel:
>>   	-rm -rf cache outputs temp
>>   	$(MAKE) -k do-check-parallel; \
>>   	result=$$?; \
>> -	$(SHELL) $(srcdir)/../../contrib/dg-extract-results.sh \
>> -	  `find outputs -name gdb.sum -print` > gdb.sum; \
>> -	$(SHELL) $(srcdir)/../../contrib/dg-extract-results.sh -L \
>> -	  `find outputs -name gdb.log -print` > gdb.log; \
>> -	$(SHELL) $(srcdir)/lib/dg-add-core-file-count.sh; \
>> -	sed -n '/=== gdb Summary ===/,$$ p' gdb.sum; \
>> +	if test -d outputs; then \
>> +	  $(SHELL) $(srcdir)/../../contrib/dg-extract-results.sh \
>> +	    `find outputs -name gdb.sum -print` > gdb.sum; \
>> +	  $(SHELL) $(srcdir)/../../contrib/dg-extract-results.sh -L \
>> +	    `find outputs -name gdb.log -print` > gdb.log; \
>> +	  $(SHELL) $(srcdir)/lib/dg-add-core-file-count.sh; \
>> +	  sed -n '/=== gdb Summary ===/,$$ p' gdb.sum; \
>> +	fi; \
>>   	exit $$result
>>   
>>   check-parallel-racy:

Re: [PATCH] gdb/testsuite: handle invalid .exp names passed in TESTS

[Andrew Burgess]

Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com> writes:

> Bruno Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Once again, very well timed patch as I had just noticed this problem! 
>> Other than a typo (response inlined), my only comment is that, since you 
>> are already renaming check-single, what do you think about renaming to 
>> check-single-thread or check-sequential?
>
> Except I'm not really renaming check-single.  I'm adding a dependency to
> check-single, and replacing the recipe for check-single.  But
> check-single itself continues to exist just as it did before.
>
> I'm not against renaming check-single to something else, but I think it
> should probably be done as a separate patch with its own justification.
>
>> My reasoning is that when first reading the message and diff, I thought 
>> this rule would test a single test, which left me confused for a minute.
>
> I can see that.
>
>>
>> Either way, I like the patch, and encourage you to approve it!
>
> I'll give this a little longer to see if anyone else has any thoughts,
> then I'll merge it.

I've gone ahead and merged this patch.

Thanks,
Andrew