> On 29 Aug 2025, at 10:32, Richard Earnshaw <richard.earns...@arm.com> 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.
For the record, I’ve now proposed a BoF for the cauldron on ‘improving the raw
output’ from the testsuite, since that seems at least one place we can make
progress - by making the input to the post-processing tools more
machine-friendly. Hopefully the concerns and ideas from this thread can
contribute there.
Iain
>
> R.
>
>> -- Jacob
>
