[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Justification for separate ${tool}-dg.exp
From: |
Rainer Orth |
Subject: |
Re: Justification for separate ${tool}-dg.exp |
Date: |
Thu, 03 Mar 2011 15:58:03 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (usg-unix-v) |
Doug Evans <address@hidden> writes:
> I can only guess, but I suspect the confusion here is because one needs to
> remember that "dg" is just one way to write a gcc dejagnu test.
Understood, but by now the vast majority of gcc testsuites uses dg
only.
> Not every test uses dg, and when dg was added to the gcc testsuite I
> certainly wasn't going to load dg stuff in ${tool}.exp.
I wonder if there's any harm in doing so. Unless the driver uses
dg-runtest or a variant thereof, the additional procs shouldn't cause
any problems.
> For reference sake,
> I think a simple rule of thumb for ${tool}.exp vs ${tool}-dg.exp is if it's
> dg-specific put it in the latter.
True, but the distinction has become quite blurred over the years.
> But no matter,
> I have no opinion on what one does today.
I'll try what happens if I remove all the explicit load_lib
${tool}-dg.exp from the drivers and do the loading in ${tool}.exp
instead.
Thanks.
Rainer
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University