On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 11:29, Christophe Lyon
<christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 10:28, Christophe Lyon
> <christophe.l...@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 at 21:12, Rainer Orth <r...@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Christophe,
> > >
> > > > dg-extract-results currently moves lines like
> > > > WARNING: program timed out
> > > > at the end of each .exp section when it generates .sum files.
> > > >
> > > > This is because it sorts its output based on the 2nd field, which is
> > > > normally the testname as in:
> > > > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20020129-1.c   -O2 -flto
> > > > -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none  execution test
> > > >
> > > > As you can notice 'program' comes after
> > > > gcc.c-torture/execute/20020129-1.c alphabetically, and generally after
> > > > most (all?) GCC testnames.
> > > >
> > > > This is a bit of a pain when trying to handle transient test failures
> > > > because you can no longer match such a WARNING line to its FAIL
> > > > counterpart.
> > > >
> > > > The attached patch changes this behavior by replacing the line
> > > > WARNING: program timed out
> > > > with
> > > > WARNING: gcc.c-torture/execute/20020129-1.c   -O2 -flto
> > > > -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none  execution test program
> > > > timed out
> > > >
> > > > The effect is that this line will now appear immediately above the
> > > > FAIL: gcc.c-torture/execute/20020129-1.c   -O2 -flto
> > > > -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none  execution test
> > > > so that it's easier to match them.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure how much people depend on the .sum format, I also
> > > > considered emitting
> > > > WARNING: program timed out gcc.c-torture/execute/20020129-1.c   -O2
> > > > -flto -fno-use-linker-plugin -flto-partition=none  execution test
> > > >
> > > > I also restricted the patch to handling only 'program timed out'
> > > > cases, to avoid breaking other things.
> > > >
> > > > I considered fixing this in Dejagnu, but it seemed more complicated,
> > > > and would delay adoption in GCC anyway.
> > > >
> > > > What do people think about this?
> > >
> > > I just had a case where your patch broke the generation of go.sum.
> > > This is on Solaris 11.5 with python 2.7.15:
> > >
> > > ro@colima 68 > /bin/ksh 
> > > /vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/../contrib/dg-extract-results.sh 
> > > testsuite/go*/*.sum.sep > testsuite/go/go.sum
> > > Traceback (most recent call last):
> > >   File 
> > > "/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/../contrib/dg-extract-results.py", line 
> > > 605, in <module>
> > >     Prog().main()
> > >   File 
> > > "/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/../contrib/dg-extract-results.py", line 
> > > 569, in main
> > >     self.parse_file (filename, file)
> > >   File 
> > > "/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/../contrib/dg-extract-results.py", line 
> > > 427, in parse_file
> > >     num_variations)
> > >   File 
> > > "/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/../contrib/dg-extract-results.py", line 
> > > 311, in parse_run
> > >     first_key = key
> > > UnboundLocalError: local variable 'key' referenced before assignment
> > >
> > > Before your patch, key cannot have been undefined, now it is.  I've
> > > verified this by removing the WARNING: lines from the two affected
> > > go.sum.sep files and now go.sum creation just works fine.
> > >
> >
> > Sorry for the breakage.
> >
> > Can you send me the .sum that cause the problem so that I can reproduce it?
> >
>
> So the problem happens when a WARNING is the first result of a new harness.
> This is fixed by the attached dg-extract-results.patch2.txt.
>
> While looking at it, I noticed that the ordering wasn't right with the
> shell version,
> though I did test it before sending the previous patch.
> The attached dg-extract-results.patch1.txt makes sure the WARNING: line
> appears before the following testcase with the shell version too.
>
> Are both OK?
>

Ping?


> Christophe
>
>
> > Thanks
> >
> > Christophe
> >
> > >         Rainer
> > >
> > > --
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University

Reply via email to