From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 549 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2008 15:06:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 425 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Nov 2008 15:06:45 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:06:08 +0000 Received: (qmail 32730 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2008 15:06:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO macbook-2.local) (stan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 14 Nov 2008 15:06:06 -0000 Message-ID: <491D93D8.6060007@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 16:41:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tristan Gingold CC: Stan Shebs , Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Darwin/x86 port (v2 - part 0) References: <3A152A70-4355-440D-839F-A4EAC36C530B@adacore.com> <200811131452.mADEq21U018058@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <406742BB-4F37-406B-B4E3-75C8DD2DBD03@adacore.com> <491C6C09.4050300@codesourcery.com> <2C387CFB-1541-41B5-964C-68692E078BFA@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <2C387CFB-1541-41B5-964C-68692E078BFA@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2008-11/txt/msg00339.txt.bz2 Tristan Gingold wrote: > > On Nov 13, 2008, at 7:03 PM, Stan Shebs wrote: >> Anyway, I'm the most logical reviewer for the bulk of native support, >> I'll give you some feedback in the next few days. In the meantime, >> please run the testsuite, let's see what the basic numbers are >> looking like. > > Thanks. I plan to post a new version of the patches that addresses > Eli's review. > > Here is the first testsuite result: > > === gdb Summary === > > # of expected passes 4299 > # of unexpected failures 3107 Hmmm, that's kind of high, even for an initial port. Is it mainly that shared library bits are missing, or something else? My natural inclination is to accept the code into the trunk after review - I suspect that the next round of changes will be more invasive into the rest of GDB, and it would be easier to consider each of those separately from the basic port. But, I have a track record of being too optimistic on this strategy, ahem. :-) What do other people think? Stan