From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20591 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2008 13:04:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 20583 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Mar 2008 13:04:53 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:04:34 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 289D8983AA; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:04:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 12932983A1; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:04:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JermR-0008BC-FM; Thu, 27 Mar 2008 09:04:31 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:04:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Markus Deuling Cc: GDB Patches Subject: Re: FAILs on x86? Message-ID: <20080327130431.GA31425@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Markus Deuling , GDB Patches References: <47EB86DF.10803@de.ibm.com> <20080327115104.GA27230@caradoc.them.org> <47EB8FCC.7070509@de.ibm.com> <20080327124424.GA30196@caradoc.them.org> <47EB9771.40204@de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47EB9771.40204@de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-03/txt/msg00429.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 01:47:45PM +0100, Markus Deuling wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz schrieb: >> On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 01:15:08PM +0100, Markus Deuling wrote: >>> Nothing special, I think (I dont think its an environment problem). Just a lot of FAILs in gdb.{base,cp,mi}. I posted >>> a list of the FAILs that are new compared to a testrun some days ago here: >> >> There's something special or they wouldn't have failed. >> >> > > I meant that it doesn't seem to be a setup problem on my machine or s.th. like that. Please just show us the log for a couple of the tests that newly fail :-) -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery