From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21957 invoked by alias); 6 May 2009 17:14:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 21938 invoked by uid 22791); 6 May 2009 17:14:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 May 2009 17:14:17 +0000 Received: (qmail 12569 invoked from network); 6 May 2009 17:14:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 6 May 2009 17:14:15 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove last occurences of target_{insert/remove}_watchpoint Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 17:14:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: Joel Brobecker , Pierre Muller References: <001a01c9c39f$e3f217c0$abd64740$@u-strasbg.fr> <200905042033.09398.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20090506165425.GO10734@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20090506165425.GO10734@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200905061814.57665.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2009-05/txt/msg00125.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 06 May 2009 17:54:25, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > I've just ran this version through sparc solaris 8, and > > it survived without regressions (although it looks like solaris test > > results got much worse somewhere along these last weeks -- around > > 1300 fails), and watchpoints still work. Joel, would you like to > > take a look at this and/or ran it on mips-irix? > > I won't have much time in the next few weeks, unfortunately :-(. > But I did run it through the testsuite. The results are really abysmal > but no regression. Okay, I'll check it in then. > # of expected passes 8361 > # of unexpected failures 2114 > # of unexpected successes 4 > # of expected failures 33 > # of known failures 29 > # of unresolved testcases 33 > # of untested testcases 72 > # of unsupported tests 30 It seems most failures on solaris are related to a single problem, e.g., p/c fun() $1 = 49 ' (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/call-sc.exp: p/c fun(); call call-sc-tc >grep "error reading variable" gdb.log | wc -l 1312 Looks like things are *really* broken. That's around as many failures as instances of that error: # of expected passes 10933 # of unexpected failures 1337 # of expected failures 41 # of known failures 54 # of unresolved testcases 9 # of untested testcases 13 # of unsupported tests 67 Does this ring a bell? I'll look at this at some point, but probably only a couple of weeks or more from now. -- Pedro Alves