From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21088 invoked by alias); 9 Jun 2009 18:12:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 21080 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jun 2009 18:12:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_34 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:12:30 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 202E9104B2; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:12:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D65104AF; Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:12:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ME5oC-0006tx-4z; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:12:28 -0400 Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:12:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [commit] Rename some test binaries Message-ID: <20090609181228.GA26510@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20090609171641.GA21222@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00233.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 12:06:18PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > Daniel> I've checked in this obvious patch, which gives a number of affected > Daniel> tests unique output files. They continue to share source files. I > Daniel> didn't audit for every output file used by every test, but these are > Daniel> the only cases I've seen fail. > > I think this also needs patches to all the Makefile.in's. > Unless you want to take the opportunity to get rid of this stuff... :) Are they actually current? If they are, I'll update them... last I remember they were very stale. > Daniel> We'd need a more thorough check if we were going to parallelize .exp > Daniel> files. > > This sure would be nice. I was looking at the rules GCC uses today. It looks like it would be easy to migrate, but the Make goo involved is over my head. Splitting gdb.base in half and then parallelizing the rest at directory granularity should do a lot of good on a modern 4-way or 8-way system. Want to give it a shot? :-) -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery