On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 16:26 -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
On Jun 2, 2006, at 11:08 AM, James Lemke wrote:
I took a quick pass at implementing the comparisons in a more suitable
lanugage. Run time is now a few seconds on both platforms. About the
same as compare_tests on my old ibook/OSX and
I took a quick pass at implementing the comparisons in a more suitable
lanugage. Run time is now a few seconds on both platforms. About the
same as compare_tests on my old ibook/OSX and much faster on FC3.
Trials show the same results as before.
For anyone interested, the new version is
On Jun 2, 2006, at 11:08 AM, James Lemke wrote:
I took a quick pass at implementing the comparisons in a more suitable
lanugage. Run time is now a few seconds on both platforms. About the
same as compare_tests on my old ibook/OSX and much faster on FC3.
Since Ben and I seem interested in
On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 03:43, Mike Stump wrote:
Mine was designed to do two things, figure out if the results are
interesting and not send email, if they are not, and to show
engineers the `interesting' detailed results in priority order. It's
meant to be run daily, and on good days, it
On Jun 1, 2006, at 1:45 AM, Richard Earnshaw wrote:
The only problem I have with Mike's script is that it doesn't handle
runs with multiple multi-lib variants nicely.
Yeah, in the past, we drove the multilib pass from above as in
general we had to select different hardware for testing. I
Please do. I'd welcome it (and scripts to generate html, to track
known issues, to trim log files, to drive things and do on)... I
think having a few different styles would be good, then people can
try them all out and see which ones they like and why. Anyway, for
me, it isn't yet
Whoops... I forgot to attach my fixes, for anyone that's interested.
--
Jim Lemke [EMAIL PROTECTED] Orillia, Ontario
--- dg-cmp-results.sh 2006/05/31 19:22:14 1.18
+++ dg-cmp-results.sh 2006/06/01 17:53:21
@@ -31,6 +31,16 @@ if test $# -ne 3 -o ! -f $2 -o ! -f $
exit 1
fi
+# Command
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
On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, James Lemke wrote:
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
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:
I wanted some mechanical way to compare the output of dejagnu runs
between releases, etc. I asked a few people at the GCC Summit last year
what they used or knew about. Not much came to light, so I ended up
writing something of my own.
It's a shell script I've been using on Linux with only
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:13:44PM -0400, James Lemke wrote:
I wanted some mechanical way to compare the output of dejagnu runs
between releases, etc. I asked a few people at the GCC Summit last year
what they used or knew about. Not much came to light, so I ended up
writing something of my
On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 11:25 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:13:44PM -0400, James Lemke wrote:
I wanted some mechanical way to compare the output of dejagnu runs
between releases, etc. I asked a few people at the GCC Summit last year
what they used or knew about. Not much
On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 12:27 -0600, Jeffrey Law wrote:
On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 11:25 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:13:44PM -0400, James Lemke wrote:
I wanted some mechanical way to compare the output of dejagnu runs
between releases, etc. I asked a few people at the GCC
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:33:29PM -0400, James Lemke wrote:
On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 12:27 -0600, Jeffrey Law wrote:
On Wed, 2006-05-31 at 11:25 -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 02:13:44PM -0400, James Lemke wrote:
I wanted some mechanical way to compare the output of dejagnu
I thought that Jeff Law had something that compared .sum files back when
he was RM. The description of what you wrote sounds similar.
Don't we have a comparison script in the contrib subdirectory?
If that script does indeed work, then I'd like to distribute it with
DejaGnu. There used to
I thought that Jeff Law had something that compared .sum files back when
he was RM. The description of what you wrote sounds similar.
Don't we have a comparison script in the contrib subdirectory?
If that script does indeed work, then I'd like to distribute it with
DejaGnu. There
James Lemke wrote:
I wanted some mechanical way to compare the output of dejagnu runs
between releases, etc.
Did you look at contrib/compare_tests? It does something very similar
to what your script is doing.
--
Jim Wilson, GNU Tools Support, http://www.specifix.com
On May 31, 2006, at 5:57 PM, Ben Elliston wrote:
Don't we have a comparison script in the contrib subdirectory?
If that script does indeed work, then I'd like to distribute it with
DejaGnu.
Please. Yes, it does work and has been working just fine for the
past decade to decade and a half.
On May 31, 2006, at 11:13 AM, James Lemke wrote:
My current version is attached. If others find it useful I can
contribute it. Comments and suggestions are welcome.
Please do. I'd welcome it (and scripts to generate html, to track
known issues, to trim log files, to drive things and do
20 matches
Mail list logo
