From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 103829 invoked by alias); 21 Jun 2018 20:06:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 103804 invoked by uid 89); 21 Jun 2018 20:06:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=terribly X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: smtp.polymtl.ca Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (HELO smtp.polymtl.ca) (132.207.4.11) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 20:06:38 +0000 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id w5LK6VvJ026344 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:06:36 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 9DC301EF28; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:06:31 -0400 (EDT) Received: from simark.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB311E059; Thu, 21 Jun 2018 16:06:24 -0400 (EDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 20:06:00 -0000 From: Simon Marchi To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, binutils@sourceware.org, Joel Brobecker , Fredrik Noring Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] GDB PR tdep/8282: MIPS: Wire in `set disassembler-options' In-Reply-To: References: <3bd95a5f-e43e-2efe-e261-c2cf30d06d14@ericsson.com> <5d5b6d47508d5f54ff2eb6e514a7da2c@polymtl.ca> Message-ID: X-Sender: simon.marchi@polymtl.ca User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.3.6 X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Thu, 21 Jun 2018 20:06:31 +0000 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-06/txt/msg00533.txt.bz2 On 2018-06-21 15:55, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > I think you chose the wrong example, after all what's the problem for > tools to notice that "foo (bar)" and "foo (bar) (timeout)" are the same > test? If the number of parenthesis pairs is different between two > messages, then strip the extra ones along with the text between from > the > message that has more of them and only then compare the resulting > strings. We can do that if we know that they are supposed to be the different test. But how do we know whether they are different tests or the same test with a special outcome in the second case? > What the problem would be are different failures in different runs, > e.g. > if we have "foo (bar) (timeout)" in one and "foo (bar) (internal > error)" > in the other one, then indeed we have an issue. We could strip > parenthesis pairs one by one from both messages at a time, but then > we'd > incorrectly consider "foo (bar)" and "foo (baz)" the same test. > > Does it matter in reality? I suppose so, given the outcome of the > discussion referred from the wiki, although I don't see the scenario I > have outlined here actually mentioned there (parts of the discussion > seem > to be missing though from the archive). The only purpose I am aware of is the script on the buildbot that analyzes results. It would show a timeout as new FAIL: foo (timeout) instead of now: PASS -> FAIL: foo So it's not terribly important, but it helps making the analysis output a bit better. >> That does not really apply to your case though. I think here you can >> just >> remove the parenthesis, and maybe add a comma. >> >> mips_disassemble_test bar "move\tv0,a4" "disassemble ABI, n64" >> >> As long as it's clear. > > OK, works for me. I'll make that adjustment as I commit the change > once > the binutils parts have been approved. > > Thank you for your review. > > Maciej Thanks, Simon