From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13163 invoked by alias); 31 Dec 2006 20:35:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 13155 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Dec 2006 20:35:15 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:35:10 +0000 Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kBVKZ0tU004000; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:35:00 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id kBVKZ0jI001086; Sun, 31 Dec 2006 21:35:00 +0100 (CET) Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 20:35:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200612312035.kBVKZ0jI001086@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: drow@false.org CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20061231200905.GA24490@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:09:05 -0500) Subject: Re: [commit] Testsuite updates References: <20061231200905.GA24490@nevyn.them.org> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-12/txt/msg00420.txt.bz2 > Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 15:09:05 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > This patch fixes or avoids a number of failures on my Debian > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu system. > > I was using a HEAD build of glibc rather than the system's glibc, > in order to pick up Jan's fix for unwinding information in signal > handlers. Having debugging information for the C library caused the > annota1.exp and annota3.exp failures. So continueing to printf didn't actually get is to printf? What's going on here? > The selftest.exp patch adds an XFAIL for a GCC bug in my system > compiler, which I reported several months ago to the GCC bugzilla. > I'm not optimistic about it getting fixed soon. A bug in *your* system compiler. How widespread is this bug? We really should be careful with complicating tests to work around problems in particular GCC versions. > And finally, for linux-dp.exp, an omission in Nathan's recent change > generated UNSUPPORTEDs on native GNU/Linux systems, where the test > should pass. Can you elaborate? I mean, what output is genererated that should be ignored?