Re: Providing more precise "excess errors" message in DejaGnu

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.

R.

> 
> -- Jacob
> 
>