> Your approach is faster, esp. on Darwin / NetBSD. > The only advantages I see to mine is handling variants (Richard's patch > fixes that), verbosity control, and detail -- compare_tests only looks > at X?(PASS|FAIL).
Hmm.. another small point, FWIW. Both the results files I used contained the following ssequence of results: PASS: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors) PASS: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors) PASS: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors) FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors) compare_tests reported the following: Tests that now fail, but worked before: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors) gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors) gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors) : Tests that now work, but didn't before: gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors) gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors) gcc.c-torture/compile/930210-1.c (test for excess errors) dg-cmp-results didn't report anything (at that verbosity) because nothing had changed. -- Jim Lemke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Orillia, Ontario
