From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D2103841892 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:13:12 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 7D2103841892 Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-541-5eyr-kEgNHiHC7sS-4YeTQ-1; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 06:13:11 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 5eyr-kEgNHiHC7sS-4YeTQ-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id c185-20020a1c35c2000000b0039db3e56c39so7102455wma.5 for ; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 03:13:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:mime-version; bh=sZodhlxKnuy2WCaNq0E31ZH70i2QOatDwq8zFcIfkzw=; b=hrD+TbIxdsmwN6pAZGm9ir55q8OdZp1bE7VPsgIpHBIOXuGs0mjF7AACqBzOf+yNZp Ivu2vTF6v1OcOHRDHx5UF7rGo9RtuWcvH2kS5sOiuEvR3MKwZ3nBYOyZdrjUoGhh3fa2 aKflhPUFk+fpjZsq34wz2e9oaQE51w061Y12RmWP3SFFK0+YKFpHKjx/9pq8IUAtYWEa vvwgLlDFTR1IUs/UQuYn7h/gvD3TYmrzS7ihM4P4IsIUw2wUnzZ2a8uO8vz9SqxKHB+i yeFCt8LhJMILtbLXdLhTlTMavWuDeNyAlW88/xU9nQiqlp6axe91cz6zaJDm4xhSmjCG kcGw== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora/UOMpzIxSMD+Wgkrvhx655Ae7KE3wQbOi8s1Z6fKMo8HdH1IGm bRgAkaHxS2CTEPCvHeQtj2L4MrVtWL06Q8KkP21qhk0J+p4vyWiBVXivY53pdAPyIgEO5IBt3bh fpWxMyMmIQeU07KNhAwicdw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:400f:b0:3a0:46cb:4c25 with SMTP id i15-20020a05600c400f00b003a046cb4c25mr8780374wmm.201.1656324789682; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 03:13:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1s2y20gegRdzxMLi07lHyVF+E5UPf+3dLO2+BokIF0kCkbv3YZljUNjXRB4RsyYEPR1yFAHEw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:400f:b0:3a0:46cb:4c25 with SMTP id i15-20020a05600c400f00b003a046cb4c25mr8780351wmm.201.1656324789402; Mon, 27 Jun 2022 03:13:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (15.72.115.87.dyn.plus.net. [87.115.72.15]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r4-20020a05600c158400b0039c457cea21sm12103170wmf.34.2022.06.27.03.13.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 27 Jun 2022 03:13:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Andrew Burgess To: Keith Seitz , Pedro Alves , Bruno Larsen , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb/testsuite: modernize gdb.base/maint.exp In-Reply-To: References: <20220509180431.31032-1-blarsen@redhat.com> <87edzic8v1.fsf@redhat.com> <2d43e796-7228-f69a-c15b-5463653fe07b@palves.net> Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 11:13:07 +0100 Message-ID: <87v8sm9zyk.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 10:13:13 -0000 Keith Seitz via Gdb-patches writes: > On 6/24/22 08:22, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 2022-06-21 16:52, Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches wrote: >>>> + pass "$test_name 1" >>> You could use: >>> >>> pass "$gdb_test_name, pattern 1" >>> >>> here, and similar, with ', pattern 2' for the next 'pass' call. >>> >> >> How about >> >> pass "$gdb_test_name (pattern 1)" >> >> pass "$gdb_test_name (pattern 2)" >> >> ? >> >> The idea being that the text in the trail parens is not considered part of the >> test name, so when comparing gdb.sum files and matching test names, that parens part >> should be discarded. Whether this test passes with pattern 1 or 2 should make >> no difference IIUC, thus I think it should not be part of the (part that counts >> as real) test name. >> > I think it no surprise that I disdain this " (whatever)" idiom in test names. There > is also a long-standing guideline in the wiki against this: > > https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/GDBTestcaseCookbook#Do_not_use_.22tail_parentheses.22_on_test_messages Rather than being against what Pedro said, that wiki page aligns exactly with Pedro's advice, to quote: "This is because our our regression analysis tools make the assumption that the text inserted between parentheses is extra information rather than part of the test name." Thus: pass "$gdb_test_name (pattern 1)" pass "$gdb_test_name (pattern 2)" Would, for the purpose of analysis, both be considered as: pass "$gdb_test_name" pass "$gdb_test_name" So, if today I hit 'pattern 1' and tomorrow hit 'pattern 2' then compared these results, I would see no changes, and all is good. I did originally consider suggesting that Bruno make this change, but in the end didn't because I would normally only use this for situations where the output is known unstable, maybe something like this imaginary situation: pass "$gdb_test_name (thread exited early)" pass "$gdb_test_name (thread exited late)" where it will depend on kernel scheduling which pass you actually hit. In contrast, I think the case Bruno is addressing depends on platform specific information, so I wouldn't expect GDB to switch outputs between separate test runs, and if it did, I think I'd want to know about it. So, for me, I'd not go with the parenthesis, but I wouldn't block the patch if they were used. Thanks, Andrew > > Has there been some unannounced, sekrit change to this policy? > > How is, e.g., "- pattern 1" any less desirable/informative than "(pattern 1)"? > > Keith