Yes, please take it, I don’t even remember what it does!
> On Nov 23, 2023, at 4:02 PM, Jeff Law <jeffreya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 11/23/23 10:06, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote:
>> Anyone using contrib/regression/btest-gcc.sh besides me?
>> It has, besides a copyright update, not seen love and attention in a
>> decade. Also, the original author and maintainer hasn't been visibly
>> active with gcc. I've contributed the other trivial, non-date changes
>> since 2009 and some others before that, and I use it regularly both in
>> my autotester and any per-target patch testing.
>> Thus, I volunteer to pick it up. I intend to keep functional
>> compatibility. Besides adding .sum file with optional presence as has
>> been done in the past, new functionality, as well as changes in
>> functionality, will be optional and default off, where reasonable
>> alternative use could otherwise break and/or have different results.
>> For example, I won't add an almost trivial LC_ALL=C to unify results
>> and avoid the problem with different LC_ALL and trying to pass state
>> between systems. One such breaking setup is running btest-gcc.sh with
>> LC_ALL=C on one system and using the resulting state in a run with
>> LC_ALL=en_US.utf8 on the other. This will break at the calls to
>> "comm" after "sort" between previous and current collections of
>> passing tests due to "g++" and "gcc" collating differently, a wart
>> I've discovered twice (and wrongly worked around once). Changing that
>> would obviously break *some* setups. This problem also doesn't need a
>> fix in btest-gcc.sh, it's trivially handled by changing its usage to
>> e.g. "env LC_ALL=C /path/to/btest-gcc.sh ...". That's not a big deal
>> if you like me call btest-gcc.sh in *another* script.
>> With this mostly trivial patchset, leading up to optional handling of
>> XPASS, I'm sort-of testing the waters. I knew about XPASS being
>> currently ignored, just didn't care enough about that as I also diff
>> the test-logs for my manual testing. The biggest problem was then
>> that each run can't be done in parallel.
> If you want it, it's yours :-) Geoff Keating left GCC (and compilers in
> general) development eons ago to focus on security issues. I haven't heard
> from or about him in probably ~10 years.
>
> So series approved and no need to get explicit acks from here out.
>
> jeff
