From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 85807 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2016 13:11:29 -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 85715 invoked by uid 89); 9 Dec 2016 13:11:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*M:4bf4, Hx-languages-length:2489, PowerPC, thousand X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Dec 2016 13:11:23 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34C5E85547 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 13:11:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn03.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.3]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uB9DBLLw028161 for ; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 08:11:21 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add test that exercises all bfd architecture, osabi, endian, etc. combinations To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1457541365-5637-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <3dd7c6fe-b195-1b6a-4bf4-ffdae0bf7485@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 13:11:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1457541365-5637-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-12/txt/msg00235.txt.bz2 (long time passed...) On 03/09/2016 04:36 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > This adds a test that exposes several problems fixed by previous patches: > > #1 - Buffer overrun when host/target formats match, but sizes don't. > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-03/msg00125.html > > #2 - Missing handling for FR-V FR300. > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-03/msg00117.html > > #3 - BFD architectures with spaces in their names (v850). > https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2016-03/msg00108.html > > #4 - The OS ABI names with spaces issue. > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-03/msg00116.html > > #5 - Bogus HP/PA long double format. > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-03/msg00122.html > > #6 - Cris big endian internal error. > https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-03/msg00126.html > > #7 - Several PowerPC bfd archs/machines not handled by gdb. > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19797 > > And hopefully helps catch others in the future. > > This started out as a test that simply did, > > gdb -ex "print 1.0L" > > to exercise #1 above. > > Then to cover both 32-bit target / 64-bit host and the converse, I > thought of having the testcase print the floats twice, once with the > architecture set to "i386" and then to "i386:x86-64". This way it > wouldn't matter whether gdb was built as 32-bit or a 64-bit program. > > Then I thought that other archs might have similar host/target > floatformat conversion issues as well. Instead of hardcoding some > architectures in the test file, I thought we could just iterate over > all bfd architectures and OS ABIs supported by the gdb build being > tested. This is what then exposed all the other problems listed > above... > > With an --enable-targets=all, this exercises over 14 thousand > combinations. Fortunately, it still consistenly runs in under a > minute on my machine (An Intel i7-4810MQ @ 2.8 MHZ running Fedora 23), > which I think with a parallel run is not that much of a big deal, as > we have other similarly long tests. This test would have caught the rl78 and rx problems that Yao fixed today. Clearly I should have pushed it in earlier so we would have caught those regressions earlier. :-/ The only reason I didn't, was that minute mentioned above. I'm playing with splitting this test in 4 files, to bring that down in a parallel run. I'll repost with that. Thanks, Pedro Alves