Re: Excluding FAILs from UNSUPPORTED test cases

Arsen Arsenović <[email protected]> Fri, 23 Sep 2022 15:02:13 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.sysutils.dejagnu.general
Message-ID	<11196079.iZpOdzofNc@bstg>

Hi,

Proceeding with the ${tool}-dg-prune based solution, I came across a 
test that does not emit PASS+UNSUPPORTED, and FAIL+UNSUPPORTED instead, 
so I went digging. It would appear that, when ${tool}-dg-prune is used 
to implement this unsupported test, the reason we got PASSes as well as 
UNSUPPORTED is error recovery: the special #error we were using to mark 
unsupported tests would get ignored, and the compiler would resume; 
however, this is a problem in some tests, because it's not always 
possible to get good results when that #error is emitted; and indeed, 
running with -Wfatal-errors produces a plethora of FAILs.

On Friday, 23 September 2022 12:02:56 CEST Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> But it seems to
> me that ideally the individual checks would get "retroactively
> skipped" if tool-dg-prune returns one of ::untested::, ::unresolved::,
> or ::unsupported::. Maybe that's not easy to do though.
The easiest way to achieve this is AFAICT to allow ${tool}-dg-test to 
return a sentinel value that would prevent processing of any further 
FAILs/PASSes by returning from the testcase immediately after the       
${tool}-dg-test call (maybe a llength == 1 list whose first element is 
one of ::{unsupported,untested,unresolved}::$msg).

Thanks,
-- 
Arsen Arsenović

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 358 B)