From: Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>,
Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>,
Bruno Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com>,
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb/testsuite: modernize gdb.base/maint.exp
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2022 10:51:12 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a1d6a221-883e-4b84-7b3f-cfd09f855ceb@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2d43e796-7228-f69a-c15b-5463653fe07b@palves.net>
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
Has there been some unannounced, sekrit change to this policy?
How is, e.g., "- pattern 1" any less desirable/informative than "(pattern 1)"?
Keith
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-24 17:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-09 18:04 Bruno Larsen
2022-05-23 14:14 ` [PING] " Bruno Larsen
2022-05-30 11:14 ` [PINGv2] " Bruno Larsen
2022-06-06 12:43 ` [PINGv3] " Bruno Larsen
2022-06-13 20:03 ` [PINGv4] " Bruno Larsen
2022-06-20 13:29 ` [PINGv5] " Bruno Larsen
2022-06-21 15:52 ` Andrew Burgess
2022-06-21 19:45 ` Bruno Larsen
2022-06-21 19:54 ` [PATCHv2] " Bruno Larsen
2022-06-24 13:20 ` [PATCH] " Andrew Burgess
2022-06-24 15:13 ` Pedro Alves
2022-06-24 15:16 ` Pedro Alves
2022-06-24 15:23 ` Pedro Alves
2022-06-24 15:22 ` Pedro Alves
2022-06-24 17:51 ` Keith Seitz [this message]
2022-06-24 17:54 ` Bruno Larsen
2022-06-24 18:41 ` Pedro Alves
2022-06-27 10:13 ` Andrew Burgess
2022-06-28 18:36 ` [PATCHv3] " Bruno Larsen
2022-06-29 10:33 ` Andrew Burgess
2022-06-29 14:00 ` Bruno Larsen
2022-06-29 14:53 ` [PATCHv4] " Bruno Larsen
2022-07-13 11:22 ` [PING][PATCHv4] " Bruno Larsen
2022-07-15 16:49 ` Tom Tromey
2022-07-15 17:20 ` Bruno Larsen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=a1d6a221-883e-4b84-7b3f-cfd09f855ceb@redhat.com \
--to=keiths@redhat.com \
--cc=aburgess@redhat.com \
--cc=blarsen@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=pedro@palves.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).