> From: Jiang, Haochen > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2025 11:17 AM > > > From: Richard Earnshaw (lists) <richard.earns...@arm.com> > > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2025 1:24 AM > > > > On 10/09/2025 14:06, Jeff Law wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 9/10/25 4:23 AM, Iain Sandoe wrote: > > > > > >> Now we have this facility - and it is firing on my testboxes (since i > > >> use this > > >> script to post-process [per .sum file for stability]) - I looked through > > >> a few > of > > >> the reported cases and they seem genuiene - but particularly in respect > > >> of > > >> dg-final ones, hard to see how they can be disambiguated without we > make > > >> dg-final able to add some tag to differentiate. > > >> > > >> are there any plans to deal with this new reported data? > > >> if not, I’d welcome a switch on the script - so that one could at least > > >> elect > > >> only to report new dups .. > > > Yea. I need to go through my results as well, it was a bit overwhelming. > > > > > > Given the filename, opt flags and scan string are in the testname, it's a > > > bit > > surprising to hear that the dg-finals are triggering :( > > > > > > jeff > > > > With Christophe's patch from earlier today I see ~100 dup tests in gcc.sum > for > > arm (for two variants, so probably about 50). But even that is an > > For x86 make check, the sums reported me 1674 under Non-unique tests > section in total (9 sums). > > I believe it is a good change to not fool the script, but could we add an > option > to bypass that? It is exploding compare tests for users (at least for me > testing > the patch) before most of them fixed and it needs time for all the components > to do that. 1600+ non-unique at the top of the report makes users hard to > find the thing they want for now. > > I have attached the log I got for x86 unix for that section as a ref. >
Forgot to mention, I appreciate the script to show the issue under i386 testsuite and I am fixing them one by one. It did reflect bugs. Maybe we need a Bugzilla to fix all the issues in GCC16 for the log I attached for x86 (and other backends)? Thx, Haochen
