Re: [PATCH] Format gotools.sum closer to what DejaGnu does

On 2 November 2023 18:06:54 CET, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: >> On Nov 2, 2023, at 21:02, rep.dot@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Hi Maxim! >> >> Many thanks for the patch! Quick question below.. >> >> On 2 November 2023 13:48:55 CET, Maxim Kuvyrkov >> wrote: >>> ... to restore compatability with valid

Re: [PATCH] Format gotools.sum closer to what DejaGnu does

rep.dot@gmail.com writes: > On 2 November 2023 18:06:54 CET, Maxim Kuvyrkov > wrote: >>> On Nov 2, 2023, at 21:02, rep.dot@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> Hi Maxim! >>> >>> Many thanks for the patch! Quick question below.. >>> >>> On 2 November 2023 13:48:55 CET, Maxim Kuvyrkov >>> wrote: [.

Re: [PATCH] Format gotools.sum closer to what DejaGnu does

> On Nov 2, 2023, at 21:02, rep.dot@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi Maxim! > > Many thanks for the patch! Quick question below.. > > On 2 November 2023 13:48:55 CET, Maxim Kuvyrkov > wrote: >> ... to restore compatability with validate_failures.py . >> The testsuite script validate_failures.py exp

Re: [PATCH] Format gotools.sum closer to what DejaGnu does

Hi Maxim! Many thanks for the patch! Quick question below.. On 2 November 2023 13:48:55 CET, Maxim Kuvyrkov wrote: >... to restore compatability with validate_failures.py . >The testsuite script validate_failures.py expects >"Running ..." to extract values, >and gotools.sum provided "Running

[PATCH] Format gotools.sum closer to what DejaGnu does

... to restore compatability with validate_failures.py . The testsuite script validate_failures.py expects "Running ..." to extract values, and gotools.sum provided "Running ". Note that libgo.sum, which also uses Makefile logic to generate DejaGnu-like output, already has "..." suffix. gotools