code review 5554056: test: split golden.out into expected output per test

test: split golden.out into expected output per test

This will permit gccgo to check test output.

[iant, 2012-01-18 22:59:02]

Hello golang-dev@googlegroups.com,

I'd like you to review this change to
https://go.googlecode.com/hg/

[r, 2012-01-18 23:19:48]

i'd like as few of these as possible

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/fixedbugs/bug067.go
File test/fixedbugs/bug067.go (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/fixedbugs/bug067.go#newcode13
test/fixedbugs/bug067.go:13: go func() { print("ok\n"); c <- 0 } ();
just delete this print

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/ken/cplx3.go
File test/ken/cplx3.go (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/ken/cplx3.go#newcode25
test/ken/cplx3.go:25: println(c)
delete this print?
you could also do
r, i := real(c), imag(c)
and check that r and i are correct.
but also you could leave it alone

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/ken/cplx5.go
File test/ken/cplx5.go (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/ken/cplx5.go#newcode51
test/ken/cplx5.go:51: println(m[complex(-5, 5)])
i think these can all be ifs

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/ken/intervar.go
File test/ken/intervar.go (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/ken/intervar.go#newcode63
test/ken/intervar.go:63: print("\n");
return strings instead of print and use a golden string

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/ken/string.go
File test/ken/string.go (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/ken/string.go#newcode26
test/ken/string.go:26: print(a+b, "-")
these prints should be ifs

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/ken/string.go#newcode75
test/ken/string.go:75: panic("fail")
all these prints can be replaced by panics

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/printbig.go
File test/printbig.go (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/printbig.go#newcode11
test/printbig.go:11: print((1<<63)-1, "\n")
this is one of those lovely tests that doesn't say what it's trying to do, but i
believe it's testing print and so must stay as it is

please, folks, put explanatory comments in all tests, at least the new ones you
create

[iant, 2012-01-18 23:59:32]

PTAL

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/fixedbugs/bug067.go
File test/fixedbugs/bug067.go (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/fixedbugs/bug067.go#newcode13
test/fixedbugs/bug067.go:13: go func() { print("ok\n"); c <- 0 } ();
On 2012/01/18 23:19:49, r wrote:
> just delete this print

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/ken/cplx3.go
File test/ken/cplx3.go (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/ken/cplx3.go#newcode25
test/ken/cplx3.go:25: println(c)
On 2012/01/18 23:19:49, r wrote:
> delete this print?
> you could also do
> r, i := real(c), imag(c)
> and check that r and i are correct.

Removed all prints in this test.
> but also you could leave it alone

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/ken/cplx5.go
File test/ken/cplx5.go (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/ken/cplx5.go#newcode51
test/ken/cplx5.go:51: println(m[complex(-5, 5)])
On 2012/01/18 23:19:49, r wrote:
> i think these can all be ifs

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/ken/intervar.go
File test/ken/intervar.go (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/ken/intervar.go#newcode63
test/ken/intervar.go:63: print("\n");
On 2012/01/18 23:19:49, r wrote:
> return strings instead of print and use a golden string

Done.

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/ken/string.go
File test/ken/string.go (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/ken/string.go#newcode26
test/ken/string.go:26: print(a+b, "-")
On 2012/01/18 23:19:49, r wrote:
> these prints should be ifs

I don't see the point of removing just some of the prints from this test.  I can
go ahead and remove printing a string literal and printing a variable, since
they are tested elsewhere anyhow.  Or I can leave the prints alone.  Any
opinions?

http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056/diff/1/test/ken/string.go#newcode75
test/ken/string.go:75: panic("fail")
On 2012/01/18 23:19:49, r wrote:
> all these prints can be replaced by panics

Done.

[r, 2012-01-19 00:04:49]

LGTM

[iant, 2012-01-19 00:12:28]

*** Submitted as http://code.google.com/p/go/source/detail?r=02273fd0c574 ***

test: split golden.out into expected output per test

This will permit gccgo to check test output.

R=golang-dev, r
CC=golang-dev
http://codereview.appspot.com/5554056