From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19269 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2004 23:13:03 -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 19246 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2004 23:13:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Feb 2004 23:13:02 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AoWCU-0007FH-0y; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 18:12:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 23:13:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: cagney@gnu.org, brobecker@gnat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Problems with dejagnu and c++ tests... Message-ID: <20040204231253.GA27811@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , cagney@gnu.org, brobecker@gnat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20040204230342.6FEEC4B364@berman.michael-chastain.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040204230342.6FEEC4B364@berman.michael-chastain.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00088.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 04, 2004 at 06:03:42PM -0500, Michael Chastain wrote: > > Which would mean that a GCC code-gen bug in malloc, or printf would > > block all ability to run the testsuite :-( > > Ah, I see. > > So don't use printf ... use write(2). I think assuming we can compile and run is fine. Output is an absolutely no-show, however. Take a look at how many of our supported targets don't have any kind of remote file I/O capability - gdbserver, for one. > There are 310 *.exp files in the test suite. > 84 of them use get_compiler_info. > 47 of them actually use one of the tests: > test_compiler_info > gcc_compiled, hp_aCC_compiler, hp_cc_compiler > signed_keyword_not_used > > (Hmmm, I feel an obvious change coming to 37 files). > > 84 out of 310 is not even close to "all". > > If I did the compiler checks up front instead of inside get_compiler_info, > then the compiler checks would have to do something nice if > gdb_compile failed, such as leave compiler_info set to "no-compiler" > for the language that failed. And we'd save duplicating the tests 84 times... -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer