From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16171 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2002 22:40:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15979 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2002 22:40:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Apr 2002 22:40:50 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g36MdAT23737; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 16:39:10 -0600 Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 14:40:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200204062239.g36MdAT23737@duracef.shout.net> To: fnasser@redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: KFAIL DejaGnu patch Cc: ac131313@cygnus.com, drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, rob@welcomehome.org X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00236.txt.bz2 I have preliminary results. On my full test bed (30 configurations, native i686-pc-linux-gnu), there is no significant difference in the gdb.sum files produced. The "before" set is tcl 8.3.4 + expect 5.33 + dejagnu 1.4.2. The "after" set is tcl 8.3.4 + expect 5.33 + dejagnu 1.4.2 + fn kfail patch. Later this weekend, I will pick two or three of the configurations at random and look carefully at every difference in gdb.log. There is a lot of noise to wade through (machine addresses and process id's different from run to run). Also I will actually proofread the code. So far I just skimmed it. Michael C