Re: RFA: Don't include value of expression in pc-fp.exp test name

[David Carlton <carlton at kealia dot com>]

On Wed, 01 Oct 2003 11:31:22 -0400, Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> said:

> As Michael well knows, supplemental information, such as which
> specific branch of a test passed or failed can be included in paren
> in the test message.  Any analysis tools comparing test results
> needs to accomodate this convention.

Then check in some analysis tools that do this.  Until you do that,
I'm going to stick with 'diff -u': it works fine for everything but
the threads test (where reordering is harder to get away with) and
pc-fp.exp.  From my point of view, all that you've accomplished by
putting that hex string in pc-fp.exp is made it more likely that I'll
ignore the test, just like I do with print-threads.exp and
schedlock.exp.

I really don't understand the motivation behind putting random stuff
in parentheses and then complaining that people aren't ignoring it.
If you want people to ignore it, and even encourage people to use
tools which shield them from it, then why have it there in the first
place?  I can see that making FAIL messages more verbose, especially
if the verbosity is in human-readable form.  But PASS messages, with
hex strings?  What am I supposed to do with that hex string?
Especially since I can get that data out of gdb.log if I really need
it.

David Carlton
carlton@kealia.com