From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4889 invoked by alias); 30 Sep 2002 22:34:42 -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 4866 invoked from network); 30 Sep 2002 22:34:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Sep 2002 22:34:41 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169]) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17wA3a-0001B1-00; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:34:30 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17w976-0007xv-00; Mon, 30 Sep 2002 18:34:04 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 15:34:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: David Carlton Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Fernando Nasser , Kevin Buettner Subject: Re: [rfa/testsuite] make annota1 regexps more generous Message-ID: <20020930223404.GB30594@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: David Carlton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Fernando Nasser , Kevin Buettner References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00786.txt.bz2 On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 03:24:59PM -0700, David Carlton wrote: > I noticed today that annota1.exp seems to be generating some spurious > FAILs on my machine, namely > > FAIL: gdb.base/annota1.exp: breakpoint info > FAIL: gdb.base/annota1.exp: backtrace from shlibrary > FAIL: gdb.base/annota1.exp: send SIGUSR1 > FAIL: gdb.base/annota1.exp: break at 28 > > In all cases, there's a regexp that looks for > ${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}, but the ${srcdir}/ component is > missing. It doesn't seem to me that that should cause a fail; here's > a patch that makes the ${srcdir}/ component optional. > > Because of Kevin's recent patch to the breakpoint info failure, it > makes the most sense to me to make ${subdir}/ optional as well, given > that he has an instance where, on one (but not all?) of those tests, > both ${srcdir} and ${subdir} are missing. So that's what I've done. > (The patch looks messy, but that's just because the regexps in > question are so big: all I'm doing is adding a few parentheses and > question marks.) > > Of course, it's possible that this really is a regression and that I'm > not correctly understanding what those tests are looking for. I'm > using GCC 3.1 on Red Hat 7.3, for what that's worth. > > Just out of curiosity, how many unexpected failures should I be > getting? I'm usually getting 100 or so, which seems like an > unfortunately large number to me: either GDB has lots of regressions, > or the testsuite is misdiagnosing passes as failures, or there are > lots of FAILs that should be changed to XFAIL. I'm hoping that many > of them are misdiagnoses; maybe I'll spend some time looking at that > when I'm not teaching and when I'm sick of symbol tables. Depends on your compiler. I had it down to a dozen or so MI failures on x86 and a couple of XPASS's, using GCC 2.95.3. 3.2 is higher because I need to finish a lot of C++ work... then there are some random failures (a la pthreads; unpredictable). And new regressions of course. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer