bug#58065: closed (UNSUPPORTED test cases still can FAIL)

[GNU bug Tracking System]

Your message dated Wed, 05 Oct 2022 20:23:56 -0500
with message-id <633E2E2C.6010307@gmail.com>
and subject line Re: bug#58065: UNSUPPORTED test cases still can FAIL
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #58065,
regarding UNSUPPORTED test cases still can FAIL
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
help-debbugs@gnu.org.)


-- 
58065: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=58065
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact help-debbugs@gnu.org with problems
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> UNSUPPORTED test cases still can FAIL
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Sun, 25 Sep 2022 01:39:05 +0200
>
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
> When a testsuite that uses dg.exp returns ::unsupported:: for some test 
> from ${tool}-dg-test or ${tool}-dg-prune, dg-{error,warning} markers in 
> that test case are still processed. If the ::unsupported:: is returned 
> from ${tool}-dg-test, these markers emit a FAIL, since the output does 
> not contain their wanted errors. If the ::unsupported:: is returned from 
> ${tool}-dg-prune, these markers are processed as normal, which can 
> sometimes PASS due to compiler resumption, but can also FAIL. I see no 
> other way to report ::unsupported:: status from the dg callbacks.
> This feels like an oversight, as it makes conditionally skipping tests 
> as UNSUPPORTED nigh impossible.
>
> Previous ML discussion:
> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/dejagnu/2022-09/msg00000.html
>
> Minimized reproduction case:
> https://git.sr.ht/~arsen/dejagnu-demo-testcase/
> (commit 4e83a1a0820062387985d866286d73299f0691a6)
>
> Suggested solutions:
> - Call ${tool}-dg-prune before processing dg-messages.
> - Permit ${tool}-dg-test to return a special value to prevent processing 
> dg-messages.
>
> Thanks,
> -- 
> Arsen Arsenović
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: bug#58065: UNSUPPORTED test cases still can FAIL
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Wed, 05 Oct 2022 20:23:56 -0500
>
>
>
>
> User-agent: 
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.22) Gecko/20090807 SeaMonkey/1.1.17 Mnenhy/0.7.6.0
>
>
>
>
> Arsen Arsenović wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 5 October 2022 05:31:17 CEST Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
> >   
> > > A preliminary patch has been pushed on the PR58065 branch at Savannah.
> > > Please confirm that it resolves this issue.
> > >     
> > It does.
> >   
>
> Thank you.  The PR58065 branch has been merged to master and will be 
> included in the future 1.6.4 release.
>
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > The descriptions given were sufficient that I was able avoid examining
> > > the offered test case and thus avoid needing associated copyright
> > > paperwork.
> > >     
> > Huh, would have looking at the provided test even require such papers? 
> > That seems a bit excess..
> >   
>
> There is a possibility of trouble if code subsequently added to DejaGnu, 
> such as a regression test, were to be "significant" and sufficiently 
> resemble the offered case, and papers were not in order.  Not looking at 
> it short-circuits the whole problem.
>
> In general, the GNU project seems to take a "better safe than sorry" 
> angle on the issue, and the prospect of being "low-hanging fruit" for 
> some future SCO-alike does not appeal to me.
>
>
> -- Jacob
>
>
> --- End Message ---