From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 48543 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2017 09:17:35 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 48525 invoked by uid 89); 3 Feb 2017 09:17:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:1530, 170202, HX-Gm-Message-State:sk:AMke39k, H*MI:sk:1486073 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: mail-wm0-f65.google.com Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com (HELO mail-wm0-f65.google.com) (74.125.82.65) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 09:17:33 +0000 Received: by mail-wm0-f65.google.com with SMTP id u63so3021556wmu.2; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 01:17:33 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=C5yZSq9VI03MoigsIf1YS3CzN7qgplpOIXEM5QO+chY=; b=eix+Ofw6FWldn98AjvoIB3FJWcZfp4R6EfhY2T0oTxYoAvrdVJun4fkjk5Q6qqhHL2 VqWQmMUC3UD6layBNsCtJXr9+t7og63kZDTDEqtmQqIRQuy95h6H3++0t/lgq2jAjrqV CveXTJojgcZ+bRL/iV/uu+pXMg78AWFfggMO9QRDZeYHiZzKiYxvxEoK5CPjv8C/Cymo CXjxTY7sG0mtaT+Y6SzYFeY0uyBCQCO1tGBMTmxTczFm7fs+AQ8eWmk4sS9fX9Ui0VC5 tnx5gR9/Q8VGMfauFhA0Ltz2skSRFS4d5VAXZcXKUmUMsS2w5foR6UAjq7hvOD302Uj1 H7Gw== X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kpfO8qbPcZ5fjXumvOVFaiSMzvR4dTrtSaEPe4CqvOKsLywtZmmJYrKAxQsOUeTg== X-Received: by 10.28.56.134 with SMTP id f128mr426426wma.29.1486113451284; Fri, 03 Feb 2017 01:17:31 -0800 (PST) Received: from E107787-LIN ([194.214.185.158]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x135sm1948732wme.23.2017.02.03.01.17.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 03 Feb 2017 01:17:30 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 09:17:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi To: Steve Ellcey Cc: binutils , gdb-patches , Yury Norov , Andreas Schwab , "Pinski, Andrew" Subject: Re: [PATCH] Patch 2 of 2 for aarch64 ILP32 support in gdb Message-ID: <20170203091726.GC27498@E107787-LIN> References: <1485303639.29977.10.camel@caviumnetworks.com> <20170126141414.GY28060@E107787-LIN> <1485555939.2509.5.camel@caviumnetworks.com> <20170129224045.ekflcodtmfs4hv54@localhost> <1485904559.22118.17.camel@caviumnetworks.com> <1485995996.22118.34.camel@caviumnetworks.com> <20170202095154.GB27498@E107787-LIN> <1486073021.22118.43.camel@caviumnetworks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <1486073021.22118.43.camel@caviumnetworks.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-02/txt/msg00091.txt.bz2 On 17-02-02 14:03:41, Steve Ellcey wrote: > OK, the pthread permission problem was the main cause of my LP64 > failures.  I fixed that, ran the standard gdb testsuite on unpatched > code in parallel mode and got 99 failures.  If I run in sequential mode > I got 74 failures.  Updating the kernel got me to 72 failures.  Many of > these are timeouts so I may need to increase that.  If I ignore the > timeouts I have 39 failures, which is pretty close to the 36 from the > buildbot testing though the list of what is and is not failing is > different. The result looks reasonable now. > > I then ran the testing with 64 bit programs using the patched sources > and got about the same results as the unpatched sources on my > machine.  There was one failure that went away (a timeout): > > FAIL: gdb.threads/step-over-trips-on-watchpoint.exp: displaced=off: no thread-specific bp: continue: continue (timeout) > > And two that appeared: > > FAIL: gdb.base/watchpoint.exp: next over buffer set > FAIL: gdb.base/watchpoint.exp: next over ptr init > > When I tested gdb on ILP32 executables I got 235 failures, only 3 of > which were timeouts.  So there are definitely some issues there.  One > thing I noticed is references to ldd.  The ldd I have in my path does > not understand ILP32 executables so that is probably causing some > failures.  I will fix that and see what else I can find to explain the > ILP32 failures. > OK, great! -- Yao (齐尧)