On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 14:55 -0800, Janis Johnson wrote:
> 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.
Sounds great to me. No more re-running the entire [EMAIL PROTECTED] gcc/g++
testsuite just because the results are mucked up due to leftover
testing files. Yippie!
Thanks a ton for taking care of this...
jeff
