On 29/08/2025 14:48, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 at 11:35, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> > wrote: >> >> On 29/08/2025 04:08, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: >>> On 8/28/25 10:10, Jeff Law wrote: >>>> On 8/28/25 8:09 AM, Richard Earnshaw (lists) wrote: >>>>> On 28/08/2025 15:01, Iain Sandoe wrote: >>>>>> [...] >>>>> >>>>> Well really, the compare-tests script should report duplicate results >>>>> as a problem as well, since >>>>> >>>>> PASS: abcd >>>>> ... >>>>> PASS: abcd >>>>> >>>>> is just a dup pass/fail waiting to happen. >>>> Yup. A duplicate testname should be reported. These cause major >>>> headaches if one passes, but the other fails -- it looks like a >>>> regression to the comparison scripting we have. >>> >>> The problem with detecting duplicate names in the DejaGnu framework is >>> that it would add memory overhead that scales with the number of tests >>> and DejaGnu tries to avoid that kind of unbounded space requirement. >>> (OK, it *is* bounded for any finite testsuite, but the idea of a >>> steadily growing memory footprint during a test run still bothers me.) >>> >>> I suggest that the comparison script GCC uses is probably the best place >>> to check for duplicate test names, since that seems to also be the >>> script that can be confused by them. >>> >> >> That's exactly what I was suggesting. Trying to do it in dejagnu would >> be a nightmare given that we run multiple instances of it to get >> parallel testing. >> > > Which script do people use these days? Here is a quick patch for > compare_tests, which actually detected duplicates ;-) > > I can commit that, if it helps. > > Thanks, > > Christophe > >> R. >> >>> >>> -- Jacob >>> >>> >>
> +uniq -c "$before_s" | grep -v '^ 1 ' > "$before_u" uniq -dc "$before_s" will do that without needing the grep step and thus depending on the exact formatting of the count field; or you could drop the -c if you don't actually want the count for some other reason. R.
