Thread: regress.sh

regress.sh

From
"Patrick Welche"
Date:
The regression tests no longer seem to be using the "alternative" expected
files should they exist. I have run out of time looking for the cause, but
the story so far is in going from version 1.28-1.29 of regress.sh,
SYSTEM has gone from 
...   printf"%s-%s", $1, a[1] }'
to
...   printf"%s-%s", $portname, a[1] }'
which means an example of output has changed from
i386-netbsd
to
i386-unknown-netbsd1.4-netbsd

Now, portname comes from PORTNAME=${os} in configure, which it appears ought
to be set in my case to
 netbsd*)       os=bsd need_tas=no       case "$host_cpu" in         powerpc) elf=yes ;;       esac ;;

"bsd", so I would expect SYSTEM to be set to "bsd-netbsd" ?! which doesn't
seem right either...

Maybe "someone" could take another look?

Cheers,

Patrick



Re: [HACKERS] regress.sh

From
wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Date:
>
> The regression tests no longer seem to be using the "alternative" expected
> files should they exist. I have run out of time looking for the cause, but
> the story so far is in going from version 1.28-1.29 of regress.sh,
> SYSTEM has gone from
> ...   printf"%s-%s", $1, a[1] }'
> to
> ...   printf"%s-%s", $portname, a[1] }'
> which means an example of output has changed from
> i386-netbsd
> to
> i386-unknown-netbsd1.4-netbsd
>
> Now, portname comes from PORTNAME=${os} in configure, which it appears ought
> to be set in my case to
>
>   netbsd*)
>         os=bsd need_tas=no
>         case "$host_cpu" in
>           powerpc) elf=yes ;;
>         esac ;;
>
> "bsd", so I would expect SYSTEM to be set to "bsd-netbsd" ?! which doesn't
> seem right either...
>
> Maybe "someone" could take another look?

    Ouch  -  looks  like  my  recent change made while adding the
    NUMERIC regression tests.

    Looking at the actual sources I wonder why it can  cause  any
    problems.  At the very beginning I've added

        portname=$1
        export portname
        shift

    That  variable  is  used  ONLY  ONCE  in  the awk line you're
    quoting above. Prior to my changes, $1 was directly  used  as
    argument  to  awk  and all remaining args ignored silently by
    regress.sh.

    Is it required that variables local in regress.sh have  upper
    case? If so, why?


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #

Re: [HACKERS] regress.sh

From
"Patrick Welche"
Date:
Jan Wieck wrote:
> 
>     Looking at the actual sources I wonder why it can  cause  any
>     problems.  At the very beginning I've added
> 
>         portname=$1
>         export portname
>         shift
> 
>     That  variable  is  used  ONLY  ONCE  in  the awk line you're
>     quoting above. Prior to my changes, $1 was directly  used  as
>     argument  to  awk  and all remaining args ignored silently by
>     regress.sh.

Ah! portname=$1 means take $1 command line argument that the script
was called by.

awk -F\- '{ split($3,a,/[0-9]/); printf"%s-%s", $1, a[1] }'

$1 here is the 1st variable from the line split by awk. ie., $1 in the
first case is "sh" syntax, $1 in second case is "awk" syntax.

So now that I know there is no intentional magic, we can go back successfully
with

39c39
< SYSTEM=`../../config.guess | awk -F\- '{ split($3,a,/[0-9]/); printf"%s-%s", $portname, a[1] }'`
---
> SYSTEM=`../../config.guess | awk -F\- '{ split($3,a,/[0-9]/); printf"%s-%s", $1, a[1] }'`

the only remaining query being:

*** expected/random.out Sun Aug 30 19:50:58 1998
--- results/random.out  Mon Jun 14 15:18:04 1999
***************
*** 19,23 ****   WHERE random NOT BETWEEN 80 AND 120; random ------
! (0 rows) 
--- 19,24 ----   WHERE random NOT BETWEEN 80 AND 120; random ------
!    124
! (1 row)

?

Cheers,

Patrick


Re: [HACKERS] regress.sh

From
Tom Lane
Date:
wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes:
>     Is it required that variables local in regress.sh have  upper
>     case? If so, why?

Nope, you just plain broke it.  The only use of the script's $1
parameter is *above* where you inserted portname=$1 (the test to
see if on windows).

The $1 in the awk script is awk's own meaning of $1.  Since it is
inside single quotes, the shell doesn't substitute for it.

I strongly suggest patching this before 6.5 ...
        regards, tom lane


Re: [HACKERS] regress.sh

From
Thomas Lockhart
Date:
> the only remaining query being:
> *** expected/random.out Sun Aug 30 19:50:58 1998
> --- results/random.out  Mon Jun 14 15:18:04 1999
> ***************
> *** 19,23 ****
>     WHERE random NOT BETWEEN 80 AND 120;
>   random
>   ------
> ! (0 rows)
> 
> --- 19,24 ----
>     WHERE random NOT BETWEEN 80 AND 120;
>   random
>   ------
> !    124
> ! (1 row)

Well, sometimes random is too random. I'll bet if you run again you
will see a different result; I'd hope that *usually* you will see the
hoped-for result. I didn't want to make the criteria too loose so that
we would miss real problems. But sometimes the test fails, even on my
machine.
                 - Thomas

-- 
Thomas Lockhart                lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu
South Pasadena, California


Re: [HACKERS] regress.sh

From
wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck)
Date:
>
> wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> >     Is it required that variables local in regress.sh have  upper
> >     case? If so, why?
>
> Nope, you just plain broke it.  The only use of the script's $1
> parameter is *above* where you inserted portname=$1 (the test to
> see if on windows).

    Uhhhh - and there where times where I wrote awk scripts who's
    output got piped  into  'groff  -p'  to  produce  statistical
    reports  with  graphics  -  hurts  to  see  that  I'm no real
    programmer anymore :-(

>
> The $1 in the awk script is awk's own meaning of $1.  Since it is
> inside single quotes, the shell doesn't substitute for it.
>
> I strongly suggest patching this before 6.5 ...

    No comment other that "sorry".


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #

Re: [HACKERS] regress.sh

From
"Patrick Welche"
Date:
Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> 
> Well, sometimes random is too random.

?! So all is alright then :)

Cheers,

Patrick


Re: [HACKERS] regress.sh

From
"Oliver Elphick"
Date:
Thomas Lockhart wrote: >> the only remaining query being: >> *** expected/random.out Sun Aug 30 19:50:58 1998 >> ---
results/random.out Mon Jun 14 15:18:04 1999 >> *************** >> *** 19,23 **** >>     WHERE random NOT BETWEEN 80 AND
120;>>   random >>   ------ >> ! (0 rows) >>  >> --- 19,24 ---- >>     WHERE random NOT BETWEEN 80 AND 120; >>   random
>>  ------ >> !    124 >> ! (1 row) > >Well, sometimes random is too random. I'll bet if you run again you >will see a
differentresult; I'd hope that *usually* you will see the >hoped-for result. I didn't want to make the criteria too
looseso that >we would miss real problems. But sometimes the test fails, even on my >machine.
 
Every time I have run it I have had a 124 row. That's about 8 times.
(glibc2/linux/i386)

--      Vote against SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/                ========================================
Oliver Elphick                                Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight                              http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver              PGP key from public servers; key
ID32B8FAA1                ========================================    "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the
merciesof      God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice,      holy, acceptable unto God, which is your
reasonable     service."       Romans 12:1