[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Justification for separate ${tool}-dg.exp

From: Doug Evans
Subject: Re: Justification for separate ${tool}-dg.exp
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 08:54:48 -0800

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Ben Elliston <address@hidden> wrote:
Hi Rainer

On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 10:51:51AM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:

> While reviewing the GCC testsuite, I noticed that practically every
> testsuite driver has the equivalent of
> load_lib ${tool}-dg.exp
> While ${tool}.exp is automatically loaded by the framework, this file
> needs to be loaded separately.
> It is sort of documented in dg.exp:
> # The normal way to write a testsuite is to have a .exp file containing:
> #
> # load_lib ${tool}-dg.exp
> # dg-init
> # dg-runtest [lsort [glob -nocomplain $srcdir/$subdir/foo*]] ...
> # dg-finish
> but so far I've no idea what the point is and how to decide what goes
> into ${tool}.exp and what into ${tool}-dg.exp.  Unless there is a good
> reason for this separation, I plan to go over the GCC testsuites and
> remove the explicit load_lib and do that in the corresponding
> ${tool}.exp until both are merged.

I don't know.  I think the best person to ask this question is Doug
Evan.  Doug, can you remember? :-)


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.
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.

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.

But no matter,
I have no opinion on what one does today.

reply via email to

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