From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31293 invoked by alias); 21 Jul 2003 14:31:53 -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 31286 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2003 14:31:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Jul 2003 14:31:52 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19ebhX-0007Ro-00; Mon, 21 Jul 2003 10:31:43 -0400 Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 14:31:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jerome Guitton Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] ARM : prologue scan Message-ID: <20030721143143.GA28437@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jerome Guitton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20030721142742.GA3621@act-europe.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030721142742.GA3621@act-europe.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00366.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 04:27:42PM +0200, Jerome Guitton wrote: > This patch adds the interpretation of the missing "add" (resp. "sub") > instruction. I have run the testsuite with the simulator, and I > found no regression; but there was a lot of test that failed, so I have > some suspicion on my setup. Can someone give me the average success/failure > on this target, or (even better :-) test it on his own setup? > Is the arm simulator (HEAD) reliable? I was getting about fifty failures, mostly from a testsuite bug in fileio.exp, IIRC. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer