From: Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>,
Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>,
GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] Don't disable selftests in a non-development build
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2018 18:42:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1534272169.15655.6.camel@skynet.be> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <367277ad-d735-0854-7aca-1df9a1927115@redhat.com>
On Tue, 2018-08-14 at 19:08 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> Another approach to addressing this issue here:
>
> > Due to the many racy testcases and random failures we see when running
> > the GDB testsuite, it is unfortunately not possible to perform a full
> > test when one is building a downstream package. As the Fedora GDB
> > maintainer and one of the Debian GDB uploaders, I feel like this
> > situation could be improved by, at least, executing our selftests
> > after the package has been built. However, we currently (for some
> > reason that is not clear by reading the archives, but see more below)
> > disable selftests on non-development builds. Therefore, this patch
> > aims to leave them enabled all the time, for everyone (including the
> > end users).
>
> ... is to come up with some small set of stable testcases that
> are considered the "smoke tests" and add a mechanism to run them.
> Could be just a list of testcases in a file that is passed to
> make check TESTS="list of basic tests here"
> or some make target like "make check-smoke", or something
> else even.
Instead of (or in addition to) some list of tests that are known to be
non-racy/alwayd ok,
maybe it would be nice to have a list of tests that are known to
be racy/sometimes wrong ?
We e.g. could mark these racy tests as part of the test itself,
with some pseudo dejagnu code like :
if [do_not_run_racy_or_sometimes_wrong_tests] {
return
}
# or, if the test is only racy on some platform
if [do_not_run_racy_or_sometimes_wrong_tests && istarget x86_64-*-*] {
return
}
The above would also help the gdb developers to interpret
the results of a test run.
I am always wondering if a failure I see can (or cannot) be
explained by the change I just did.
Philippe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-08-14 18:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-08-14 5:42 Sergio Durigan Junior
2018-08-14 16:28 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2018-08-14 18:08 ` Pedro Alves
2018-08-14 18:42 ` Philippe Waroquiers [this message]
2018-08-14 20:17 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2018-08-14 20:12 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2018-09-17 20:22 ` [PATCH] Add parameter to allow enabling/disabling selftests via configure Sergio Durigan Junior
2018-09-23 3:56 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2018-10-06 1:19 ` Simon Marchi
2018-10-10 20:31 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1534272169.15655.6.camel@skynet.be \
--to=philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be \
--cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=sergiodj@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox