* GDB test suite question
@ 2012-08-24 15:44 Jeff Kenton
2012-08-24 16:13 ` Jan Kratochvil
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Kenton @ 2012-08-24 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
What is a reasonable target number for "unexpected failures" when
running the test suite for a specific processor?
Thanks.
--jeff kenton
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: GDB test suite question
2012-08-24 15:44 GDB test suite question Jeff Kenton
@ 2012-08-24 16:13 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-08-24 16:37 ` Tom Tromey
2012-08-24 16:45 ` Yao Qi
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2012-08-24 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Kenton; +Cc: gdb-patches
On Fri, 24 Aug 2012 17:44:02 +0200, Jeff Kenton wrote:
>
> What is a reasonable target number for "unexpected failures" when
> running the test suite for a specific processor?
Diff the *.sum files, I do not think the count says anything meaningful.
Fedora 18 x86_64 says:
# of expected passes 24875
# of unexpected failures 16
# of unexpected successes 4
# of expected failures 52
# of known failures 68
# of untested testcases 8
# of unsupported tests 25
Regards,
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: GDB test suite question
2012-08-24 15:44 GDB test suite question Jeff Kenton
2012-08-24 16:13 ` Jan Kratochvil
@ 2012-08-24 16:37 ` Tom Tromey
2012-08-24 16:54 ` Jeff Kenton
2012-08-24 16:45 ` Yao Qi
2 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2012-08-24 16:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Kenton; +Cc: gdb-patches
>>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Kenton <jkenton@tilera.com> writes:
Jeff> What is a reasonable target number for "unexpected failures" when
Jeff> running the test suite for a specific processor?
In addition to what Jan said, if it is a new port, I think you just have
to look through a bunch of them and see what is happening.
Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: GDB test suite question
2012-08-24 15:44 GDB test suite question Jeff Kenton
2012-08-24 16:13 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-08-24 16:37 ` Tom Tromey
@ 2012-08-24 16:45 ` Yao Qi
2 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Yao Qi @ 2012-08-24 16:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Kenton; +Cc: gdb-patches
On 08/24/2012 11:44 PM, Jeff Kenton wrote:
>
> What is a reasonable target number for "unexpected failures" when
> running the test suite for a specific processor?
>
I don't have a target number, but you may have to get a reasonable
explanation of each FAIL, if possible.
--
Yao
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: GDB test suite question
2012-08-24 16:37 ` Tom Tromey
@ 2012-08-24 16:54 ` Jeff Kenton
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Kenton @ 2012-08-24 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: gdb-patches
On 08/24/2012 12:36 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Jeff> What is a reasonable target number for "unexpected failures" when
> Jeff> running the test suite for a specific processor?
>
> In addition to what Jan said, if it is a new port, I think you just have
> to look through a bunch of them and see what is happening.
>
> Tom
Thanks for the answers. It's a pretty new port -- Tilera TILE-Gx. When
I first submitted it there were a LARGE number of failures. Now it's
better (113), but I wanted to see how far I still had to go.
--jeff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-08-24 16:54 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-08-24 15:44 GDB test suite question Jeff Kenton
2012-08-24 16:13 ` Jan Kratochvil
2012-08-24 16:37 ` Tom Tromey
2012-08-24 16:54 ` Jeff Kenton
2012-08-24 16:45 ` Yao Qi
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox