On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 11:41:13AM -0700, Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 14:09 -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> > Janis Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > I also find it annoying that the dump files aren't cleaned up. Should
> > > the dump files for failing tests be left, or would it be OK to remove
> > > all of them?
> > >
> > Much as I don't use the failing executables left behind by the
> > testsuite, I wouldn't use the dump files. They can be easily recreated.
> >
> > But, I can see valid reasons to wanting dump files for failing tests be
> > left behind. The dump files for successful should be removed, though.
>
> The problem with leaving failed dump files behind is that they can
> interfere with a following run of the testsuite (particularly if a pass
> is added/subtracted). I would vote strongly that the dump files for
> failing tests be removed.
I'm working on procs to be used in dg-final directives as:
{ dg-final { cleanup-tree-dump "suffix" } }
{ dg-final { cleanup-saved-temps } }
{ dg-final { cleanup-coverage-files } }
These are for use in each test that generates files that are currently
left cluttering up the build's gcc/testsuite directory. I've also got
changes to a couple hundred tests to use these new test directives.
Each proc removes files that were generated for the current test. Tests
that generate extra files already use dg-options to request those files,
so adding another test directive to clean them up doesn't seem like an
unreasonable burden.
Janis
