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

On 8/29/25 7:48 AM, Christophe Lyon wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2025 at 11:35, Richard Earnshaw via Gcc <[email protected]> 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.
>>
> 
> Which script do people use these days?  Here is a quick patch for
> compare_tests, which actually detected duplicates ;-)
My tester uses compare_tests.  So I'm happy with where this is going ;-) 
  Assuming this goes forward we should have a good sense of duplicated 
tests relatively quickly across the vast majority of our targets.

jeff