[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

> 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


Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]