From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14753 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2010 06:13:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 14743 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Feb 2010 06:12:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:12:55 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CC152BAAC1 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 01:12:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id B6lSiIQWM9-D for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 01:12:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C462BAAB5 for ; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 01:12:53 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B3F9BF59A2; Thu, 4 Feb 2010 10:12:46 +0400 (RET) Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:13:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: Fix testsuite timeout clobbers Message-ID: <20100204061246.GA2715@adacore.com> References: <20100128215305.GA2813@caradoc.them.org> <20100129035950.GB26827@adacore.com> <20100129153726.GC30542@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100129153726.GC30542@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-02/txt/msg00102.txt.bz2 > > On the same topic (timeouts), I ran the testsuite on sparc-solaris, > > yesterday, and some tests were badly timing out, and each timeout > > was taking what it felt like hours (the testsuite itself took more > > than 2 hours, and that's after I justed killed -9 the inferiors from > > the tests). With AdaCore's testsuite, a timeout means we've lost sync > > with debugger anyway - is there really an advantage to continuing a > > testcase when we get a timeout? Wouldn't it just as effective to abort > > the testcase after the first timeout? > > IMO this is an excellent idea. I wonder if we shouldn't resurrect > (but, working this time!) the suppression mechanism? I'd take any approach that works - problem is: I don't really know off-hand of any way that might work. Any ideas? Otherwise, I'll try digging a little when I have another minute. -- Joel