From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3169 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2002 05:18:07 -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 3157 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2002 05:18:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Dec 2002 05:18:06 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gBC5I3w14596; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 23:18:03 -0600 Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:52:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200212120518.gBC5I3w14596@duracef.shout.net> To: carlton@math.stanford.edu Subject: Re: [rfa/testsuite] gdb.base/selftest.exp: work with optimization Cc: fnasser@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00393.txt.bz2 David Carlton wrote: > Obviously it's not the most important version of GCC to test with, but > I haven't yet run into a compelling reason to upgrade to a more recent > version; and it probably doesn't hurt to have somebody testing GDB > with compilers other than 2.95-variants and 3.2.1. (Though your test > matrix now handles that issue quite nicely.) Diversity is good. I was just kinda surprised. I'm planning to prune my own test bed in the next few days by dropping gcc 3.0.4, gcc 3.1, gcc 3.1.1, and gcc 3.2. I just need one clean monster run and then an hour or two of table-spelunking. There are result changes from 3.0.4 to 3.1 (mostly good, some bad), but I haven't seen any substantive changes from 3.1 to 3.2.1. Michael C