Format test results closer to what DejaGnu does

  The years of dealing with Binutils, GCC and GDB test results
made the community create good tools for comparison and analysis
of DejaGnu test results.  This change allows to use those tools
for Glibc's test results as well.

The motivation for this change is Linaro's pre-commit testers,
which use a modified version of GCC's validate_failures.py
to create test xfail lists with baseline failures and known
flaky tests.  See below links for an example xfails file (only
one link is supposed to work at any given time):
- https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_glibc_check--master-arm-build/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/artifacts/artifacts.precommit/sumfiles/xfails.xfail/*view*/
- https://ci.linaro.org/job/tcwg_glibc_check--master-arm-build/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/artifacts/sumfiles/xfails.xfail/*view*/

Specifacally, this patch changes format of glibc's .sum files from ...
<cut>
FAIL: elf/test1
PASS: string/test2
</cut>
... to ...
<cut>
             === glibc tests ===

Running elf ...
FAIL: elf/test1

Running string ...
PASS: string/test2
</cut>.

And output of "make check" from ...
<cut>
FAIL: elf/test1
</cut>
... to ...
<cut>
		=== glibc failures ===
FAIL: elf/test1
		=== Summary of results ===
      1 FAIL
      1 PASS
</cut>.

Signed-off-by: Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim.kuvyrkov@linaro.org>
---
 Makefile                      | 12 ++++++++----
 scripts/merge-test-results.sh |  3 +++
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
  

* Maxim Kuvyrkov via Libc-alpha:

> +# Print test summary for tests in $1 .sum file;
> +# $2 is optional test identifier.
> +# Fail if there are unexpected failures in the test results.
>  define summarize-tests
> +@echo "		=== glibc failures ==="
> +@grep -E '^[A-Z]+:' $(objpfx)$1 | grep -E -v '^(PASS|XFAIL):' || true
> +@echo "		=== Summary of results$2 ==="
> +@sed -e '/:.*/!d' -e 's/:.*//' < $(objpfx)$1 | sort | uniq -c
> +@! grep -E '^[A-Z]+:' $(objpfx)$1 | grep -E -q -v '^(X?PASS|XFAIL|UNSUPPORTED):'
>  endef

Doesn't this print “=== glibc failures ===” unconditionally even if
there are no failures?  Is this really what DejaGnu does?

Thanks,
Florian
  

> On Jun 5, 2023, at 17:35, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> * Maxim Kuvyrkov via Libc-alpha:
> 
>> +# Print test summary for tests in $1 .sum file;
>> +# $2 is optional test identifier.
>> +# Fail if there are unexpected failures in the test results.
>> define summarize-tests
>> +@echo " === glibc failures ==="
>> +@grep -E '^[A-Z]+:' $(objpfx)$1 | grep -E -v '^(PASS|XFAIL):' || true
>> +@echo " === Summary of results$2 ==="
>> +@sed -e '/:.*/!d' -e 's/:.*//' < $(objpfx)$1 | sort | uniq -c
>> +@! grep -E '^[A-Z]+:' $(objpfx)$1 | grep -E -q -v '^(X?PASS|XFAIL|UNSUPPORTED):'
>> endef
> 
> Doesn't this print “=== glibc failures ===” unconditionally even if
> there are no failures?  Is this really what DejaGnu does?

Hi Florian,

Good point.  Note that the above output doesn't reach .sum files, the output is only printed out to stdout.

I could either drop "=== glibc failures ===" line entirely, or print out "no unexpected failures", e.g.:
@echo " === glibc failures ==="
@grep -E '^[A-Z]+:' $(objpfx)$1 | grep -E -v '^(PASS|XFAIL):' || echo "no unexpected failures"

WDYT?

Thanks,

--
Maxim Kuvyrkov
https://www.linaro.org
  

* Maxim Kuvyrkov:

>> On Jun 5, 2023, at 17:35, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
>> 
>> * Maxim Kuvyrkov via Libc-alpha:
>> 
>>> +# Print test summary for tests in $1 .sum file;
>>> +# $2 is optional test identifier.
>>> +# Fail if there are unexpected failures in the test results.
>>> define summarize-tests
>>> +@echo " === glibc failures ==="
>>> +@grep -E '^[A-Z]+:' $(objpfx)$1 | grep -E -v '^(PASS|XFAIL):' || true
>>> +@echo " === Summary of results$2 ==="
>>> +@sed -e '/:.*/!d' -e 's/:.*//' < $(objpfx)$1 | sort | uniq -c
>>> +@! grep -E '^[A-Z]+:' $(objpfx)$1 | grep -E -q -v '^(X?PASS|XFAIL|UNSUPPORTED):'
>>> endef
>> 
>> Doesn't this print “=== glibc failures ===” unconditionally even if
>> there are no failures?  Is this really what DejaGnu does?
>
> Hi Florian,
>
> Good point.  Note that the above output doesn't reach .sum files, the output is only printed out to stdout.
>
> I could either drop "=== glibc failures ===" line entirely, or print out "no unexpected failures", e.g.:
> @echo " === glibc failures ==="
> @grep -E '^[A-Z]+:' $(objpfx)$1 | grep -E -v '^(PASS|XFAIL):' || echo "no unexpected failures"
>
> WDYT?

I looked at the gcc-testresults mailing list, and there appear no
=== … failures === lines at all?  What was the motivation for adding it
in the first place?

Thanks,
Florian
  

> On Jun 19, 2023, at 17:59, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> * Maxim Kuvyrkov:
> 
>>> On Jun 5, 2023, at 17:35, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> * Maxim Kuvyrkov via Libc-alpha:
>>> 
>>>> +# Print test summary for tests in $1 .sum file;
>>>> +# $2 is optional test identifier.
>>>> +# Fail if there are unexpected failures in the test results.
>>>> define summarize-tests
>>>> +@echo " === glibc failures ==="
>>>> +@grep -E '^[A-Z]+:' $(objpfx)$1 | grep -E -v '^(PASS|XFAIL):' || true
>>>> +@echo " === Summary of results$2 ==="
>>>> +@sed -e '/:.*/!d' -e 's/:.*//' < $(objpfx)$1 | sort | uniq -c
>>>> +@! grep -E '^[A-Z]+:' $(objpfx)$1 | grep -E -q -v '^(X?PASS|XFAIL|UNSUPPORTED):'
>>>> endef
>>> 
>>> Doesn't this print “=== glibc failures ===” unconditionally even if
>>> there are no failures?  Is this really what DejaGnu does?
>> 
>> Hi Florian,
>> 
>> Good point.  Note that the above output doesn't reach .sum files, the output is only printed out to stdout.
>> 
>> I could either drop "=== glibc failures ===" line entirely, or print out "no unexpected failures", e.g.:
>> @echo " === glibc failures ==="
>> @grep -E '^[A-Z]+:' $(objpfx)$1 | grep -E -v '^(PASS|XFAIL):' || echo "no unexpected failures"
>> 
>> WDYT?
> 
> I looked at the gcc-testresults mailing list, and there appear no
> === … failures === lines at all?  What was the motivation for adding it
> in the first place?

The only motivation is that it looks like a nice header for the following FAILs.  What's your preference for the line -- drop it entirely or print out:

=== glibc failures ===
no unexpected failures

?
--
Maxim Kuvyrkov
https://www.linaro.org