On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:42 PM, Thomas Graf <tgraf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > The return value of thest will only be non zero if an actual error > has been detected. It will remain zero if only warnings have been > found. So we would need to parse the text between "check-exit-start" > and "check-error-end" for the string "error:" or something a like > that. I found that to be fragile and the explicit declaration of an > expected failure to be superior as it also verifies whether an > expected warning is properly treated as a warning or not. > It does not conflict with what I said. My point is setting the *default* value of the test case. You can still set the expected return value explicitly using ""check-exit-value". There is nothing imprecise about it. It is just need a regular expression. In python that will be: r"(?m)^\S+?:\d+:\d+: error:". The test case is written in Perl, it will need some conversion in regular expression pattern. Otherwise, this change is very invasive in the sense that, patches apply after your patch will need to update the test case return value. Maybe I need to wait until I apply all other patches before yours? You are still testing the return value, just the *default* is inferred from error output. Which is pretty obvious. Thanks Chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
