From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21105 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2002 15:46:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 20997 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2002 15:46:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2002 15:46:15 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (tooth.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.29]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43411800257; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 10:46:13 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DECD435.6020409@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2002 07:46:00 -0000 From: Fernando Nasser Organization: Red Hat Canada User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020607 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: David Carlton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Kevin Buettner , Elena Zannoni , Fernando Nasser Subject: Re: [rfa/testsuite] make annota1 regexps more generous References: <20020930223404.GB30594@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00063.txt.bz2 (adding Elena) It all depends on what emacs needs. If emacs expect the full path then we have a regression. If emacs is happy with ${srcdir}/${subdir} or both being omitted then we fix the test patterns. Does someone know the answer? Regards, Fernando Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 03:24:59PM -0700, David Carlton wrote: > >>I noticed today that annota1.exp seems to be generating some spurious >>FAILs on my machine, namely >> >>FAIL: gdb.base/annota1.exp: breakpoint info >>FAIL: gdb.base/annota1.exp: backtrace from shlibrary >>FAIL: gdb.base/annota1.exp: send SIGUSR1 >>FAIL: gdb.base/annota1.exp: break at 28 >> >>In all cases, there's a regexp that looks for >>${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}, but the ${srcdir}/ component is >>missing. It doesn't seem to me that that should cause a fail; here's >>a patch that makes the ${srcdir}/ component optional. >> >>Because of Kevin's recent patch to the breakpoint info failure, it >>makes the most sense to me to make ${subdir}/ optional as well, given >>that he has an instance where, on one (but not all?) of those tests, >>both ${srcdir} and ${subdir} are missing. So that's what I've done. >>(The patch looks messy, but that's just because the regexps in >>question are so big: all I'm doing is adding a few parentheses and >>question marks.) >> >>Of course, it's possible that this really is a regression and that I'm >>not correctly understanding what those tests are looking for. I'm >>using GCC 3.1 on Red Hat 7.3, for what that's worth. >> >>Just out of curiosity, how many unexpected failures should I be >>getting? I'm usually getting 100 or so, which seems like an >>unfortunately large number to me: either GDB has lots of regressions, >>or the testsuite is misdiagnosing passes as failures, or there are >>lots of FAILs that should be changed to XFAIL. I'm hoping that many >>of them are misdiagnoses; maybe I'll spend some time looking at that >>when I'm not teaching and when I'm sick of symbol tables. > > > Depends on your compiler. I had it down to a dozen or so MI failures > on x86 and a couple of XPASS's, using GCC 2.95.3. 3.2 is higher > because I need to finish a lot of C++ work... then there are some > random failures (a la pthreads; unpredictable). And new regressions of > course. > -- Fernando Nasser Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com 2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300 Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9