From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31171 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2004 15:44:22 -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 31155 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2004 15:44:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Jan 2004 15:44:21 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AgnBq-0001xk-OI; Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:44:18 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:44:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch/rfc/testsuite] Test GDB on not-so-little core files Message-ID: <20040114154418.GA7520@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20040114145701.9034A4B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> <40055B49.70003@redhat.com> <20040114151619.GA6374@nevyn.them.org> <40056277.8050209@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40056277.8050209@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00377.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 14, 2004 at 10:38:31AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >There are two things that make me really nervous about this test. One > >of them is systems with bad out-of-memory behavior, and the other is > >systems that don't dump sparse corefiles. That's some serious pounding > >we'll be handing out... > > Wicked. Our testsuite could do with some serious real world pounding. > Otherwize we'll never find, fix and then maintain the edge cases those > tests can identify. Well, my point is not that it will be pounding GDB, but that it will be pounding the equipment used to test GDB; that's less obviously good :) > BTW, I wrote: > > > on some systems may not be so efficient at dumping core files making > the test too slow > > and those systems may find it better to disable the test :-/ My fear is that it will vary by machine and configuration, not by OS. I'll give it a shot first, but I may be asked by the maintainers of the Debian autobuilder network to disable this test - normally I collect test results from every architecture (that works reasonably well, I'd been leaving off Sparc for 6.0...) when the package is built. It's not a big deal for the FSF tree either way. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer