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

> On 29 Aug 2025, at 10:32, Richard Earnshaw <[email protected]> =
wrote:
>=20
> 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:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>=20
>>>> Well really, the compare-tests script should report duplicate =
results as a problem as well, since
>>>>=20
>>>> PASS: abcd
>>>> ...
>>>> PASS: abcd
>>>>=20
>>>> 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.
>=20
> 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=E2=80=99ve now proposed a BoF for the cauldron on =
=E2=80=98improving the raw output=E2=80=99 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

>=20
> R.
>=20
>> -- Jacob
>=20