From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7179 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2011 19:19:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 7163 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Dec 2011 19:19:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,TW_DB X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:19:08 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBDJJ5uA019363 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:19:05 -0500 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-16.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.16]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pBDJIxD8019091 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:19:02 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:25:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] PR threads/10729: x86 hw watchpoints and non-stop mode Message-ID: <20111213191858.GA30724@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <201112051601.59664.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201112122013.51990.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20111213172318.GA9565@host2.jankratochvil.net> <201112131801.20730.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201112131801.20730.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2011-12/txt/msg00418.txt.bz2 On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:01:20 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > > Currently I run the testsuite already in multiple modes and some testcases run > > in duplicate configurations that way, costing needless time+power=money. > > I'd be fine to restrict them to native runs (that's how Dan originally > designed them), If I change something in gdbserver I run just the testsuite in gdbserver mode. If there is such restriction I would miss such change. Moreover it seems overcomplicated to me to combine one mode into other modes. I run FSF GDB HEAD now in 5 modes (default dwarf4-nogdbtypes dwarf4-gdbtypes gdbindex gdbserver); in fact 15 modes (x86_64/x86_64-m32/i686), I will run it in more modes soon. Finding fast what has regressed from which set of tests has failed is already tricky as the testsuite already runs some tests in different modes than expected. According to my various "Regression" mails to gdb-patches you can see it is already not enough to regression test GDB in a single mode only. So if one has to run multiple modes they could be run really purely in their mode. The same applies to PIE mode, if one debugs PIE code one runs the whole GDB testsuite in PIE mode (there are still some bugs/incompletenesses in PIE...). > and get back to this once we have better support for > testing everything in extended-remote mode. We will still need to test GDB in legacy mode for compatibility reasons with non-FSF gdbservers and existing user setups of gdbserver. I do not see what will change with adding the new extended-remote mode to the existing set of modes required to be run. > > As a less ambitious change if you do not like gdbserver_start_extended in this > > testcase we can change it. > > That'd be my preference. AFAIK there currently does not exist any extended-mode board file so there does not make sense to check in a testcase requiring it. > > But gdb.server/ext-*.exp do exactly the same so they have to be > > changed all together. > > I disagree, they don't have to. With http://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/TestingGDB#Native_Board_File they both run the server in extended mode. There is a difference in default mode gdb.server/ext-*.exp also run it in extended mode while this testcases runs in linux-nat mode in such case. Our opinion probably differs in that I find running GDB testing only in the default mode as insufficient. Thanks, Jan