From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21936 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2003 07:41:47 -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 21917 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2003 07:41:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO duracef.shout.net) (204.253.184.12) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 14 Jan 2003 07:41:46 -0000 Received: (from mec@localhost) by duracef.shout.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0E7fXm30084; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 01:41:33 -0600 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 07:41:00 -0000 From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Message-Id: <200301140741.h0E7fXm30084@duracef.shout.net> To: drow@mvista.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC/testsuite] Update "info float" output for i386 X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00515.txt.bz2 Proofread, but not tested. Recommended for approval provided that you have tested this at least once. This is cool, this "info float" line shows up in my test results as a regression from gdb 5.3 to gdb HEAD. I looked it and came up with the same (obvious) analysis that you did. So now that's one fewer boring paragraph I will have to write when it comes time for "gdb 5.3 versus gdb HEAD" analysis. > ... and I'll be right back where I started at dozens of failures. > But I'll have a tremendous sense of accomplishment! My metric is: "number of tests which have at least one non-PASS line in at least one tested configuration." 5.2 was better than 5.1.1 5.2.1 was the same as 5.2 5.3 was better than 5.2.1 gdb HEAD is better than 5.3 The # of tests increases in every release so this is particularly good progress. Michael C === 2003-01-13 Daniel Jacobowitz * gdb.base/default.exp (info float): Update expected output for i386.