Re: [patch gas/testsuite SEH x64]: Some initial tests about SEH pseudo-operators

[Kai Tietz <ktietz70 at googlemail dot com>]

2010/9/12 Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@gmail.com>:
> On 12/09/2010 16:39, Kai Tietz wrote:
>> 2010/9/12 Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin:
>>> On 12/09/2010 10:43, Kai Tietz wrote:
>
>>>> this patch adds some x64 SEH related tests to gas' testsuite.
>
>>>> ? ? ? ? ? * /gas/pe/pe_seh.exp: New.
>
>>> ?Please let's not multiply expect scripts unnecessarily. ?I can't think of
>>> any reason not to just tag the "if ([istarget "x86_64-*-mingw*"])" clause onto
>>> the end of the existing gas/pe/pe.exp,
>
>> Hmm, I think it is worth having here a separate .exp script. SEH is
>> present for other PE-COFF targets, too. And so tests of features
>> should be grouped IMHO.
>
> ?That is a non-sequitur. ?Yes, SEH is present for other PE-COFF targets too,
> but they could run the tests just the same regardless of whether those tests
> are in the same .exp file or a separate one.
>
>> What make you think that it is better to have just on giant .exp files
>> containing everything unsorted?
>
> ?There's no need for it to be "unsorted"; tests within the file can still be
> arranged into logical groups, and the whole thing formatted nicely. ?Nor will
> it be "giant"; there's only a few lines of tests in there already, so adding a
> handful more won't make it giant. ?(If we had hundreds of tests in there,
> you'd have a point, but that's not going to happen any time in the foreseeable
> future, so let's cross that bridge /if/ we come to it!)
>
> ?My advice is based on Alan's advice to me in an earlier thread(*):
>
>> Yes, this was to avoid proliferation of .exp files. ?More
>> .exp files means slightly slower testsuite runs, for all targets.
>> There isn't really any reason to put simple run_dump_test style tests
>> in separate files. ?You can select targets, set as and ld flags
>> etc. all in their .d files. ?I think the ideal is one main .exp file
>> per directory to handle all the simple tests, with other .exp files as
>> necessary for more complex tests, but it's not terribly important.
>
> ?Your new .exp file has 38 lines, of which all but 5 are an exact duplicate
> of the contents of the existing pe.exp. ?Redundancy is bad, and so is
> redundancy! ?This is why I can't see any value in having them in a separate file.
>
> ? ?cheers,
> ? ? ?DaveK
> --
> (*) - http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2009-05/msg00263.html
>
>

Ok, moved tests into pe.exp. Applied.

Cheers,
Kai

-- 
|? (\_/) This is Bunny. Copy and paste
| (='.'=) Bunny into your signature to help
| (")_(") him gain world domination