-----Original Message-----
From: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Pedro Alves
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 4:33 PM
To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal; Michael Eager; Joel Brobecker
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Vinod Kathail; Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: Re: [Patch] Microblaze: Port of Linux gdbserver

On 12/19/2014 10:26 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pedro Alves [mailto:palves@redhat.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 4:58 PM
> To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal; Michael Eager; Joel Brobecker
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Vinod Kathail; Vidhumouli Hunsigida; 
> Nagaraju Mekala
> Subject: Re: [Patch] Microblaze: Port of Linux gdbserver
> 
> On 12/18/2014 08:56 AM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
>> From: Pedro Alves [mailto:palves@redhat.com] On 10/17/2014 08:22 PM, 
>> Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
>>
>>> Gdb.base gdb testsuite is run and here is the status of gdb testsuite run for gdb.base.
>>>
>>>                 === gdb Summary ===
>>>
>>> # of expected passes            7804
>>> # of unexpected failures        2263
>>
>>>> Over 2000 unexpected failures is not very reassuring though.
>>>> Have you looked at the logs to get an idea of what might be broken?
>>
>> We have looked at the log files for the failures. Here are the main categories of the failure.
>>
>> 1. push_dummy_code is not implemented for Micro blaze port  due to this  there are 350+ failures.
> 
>>> Eh, no inferior function call support.  Are you planning on implementing this?
> 
>>> You can set gdb,cannot_call_functions in your board file to skip the affected tests meanwhile.
> 
>> 2.  Failures for signals is around 357.
> 
>>> What sort of failures?
> 
>> 3. Watch point  failures are around 817.
> 
>>> Set gdb,no_hardware_watchpoints in the board file.
> 
> Thanks. We have used the following gdb options as per your suggestions.
> 
> set_board_info gdb,no_hardware_watchpoints 1 set_board_info 
> gdb,cannot_call_functions 1 set_board_info gdb,nosignals 1
> 

>>To be clear, gdb,nosignals is for targets that truly have no concept of signals.  A Linux port should not need that...  It's probably masking out real problems.

Thanks. I have added gdb,nosignals to investigate the failures for signal handling. Sorry for that.

> The gdb summary for gdb.base is as follows:
> 
>                 === gdb Summary ===
> 
> # of expected passes            6047
> # of unexpected failures        539

>>FYI, this is way higher than I'd expect after disabling all that functionality.


Could you please let me know what is the expected failures  after disabling all that functionality.

Thanks & Regards
Ajit

> # of expected failures          17
> # of known failures             21
> # of unresolved testcases       26
> # of untested testcases         43
> # of unsupported tests          133
> 
> I will send the modified patch incorporating your comments.

Thanks.
Pedro Alves

�&���j�!z�޶���_9��b�֫rn��r�