Re: [PATCH 0/7] first batch of test suite updates

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 06/19/2013 10:03 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> I've been working on a long-term project to fully parallelize the gdb
> test suite.  The end goal is that it should be possible to run each
> .exp file in parallel.

Looking forward.

> This project has many parts; and the full patch is not quite finished
> (and is also very large).  I wanted to start sending out some of the
> more straightforward changes, mostly so that I wouldn't have to
> constantly rebase them.  I think these changes are reasonable in their
> own right.

Agreed.

> 
> This series holds all the "easy" conversions from gdb.base.  This is
> just straightforward changes to use standard_testfile and
> standard_output_file, plus also prepare_for_testing or clean_restart
> as well.
> 
> This series fixes a few spots where .exp files did not interact well.
> For example, cases where the tests used the same executable name.
> 
> This regression tests cleanly; however since some file names changed
> there are a few minor output changes:
> 
>     Missing tests:
>     gdb.base/corefile.exp: args: -core=coremaker.core: PASS
>     gdb.base/corefile.exp: args: execfile -core=coremaker.core: PASS
>     gdb.base/info-proc.exp: core break.gcore: PASS
> 
>     New tests:
>     gdb.base/corefile.exp: args: -core=corefile.core: PASS
>     gdb.base/corefile.exp: args: execfile -core=corefile.core: PASS
>     gdb.base/default.exp: set the history filename: PASS
>     gdb.base/info-proc.exp: core info-proc.gcore: PASS
> 
> I don't consider this to be a problem.

Agreed.

> 
> I split the patch up into 7 roughly equal-sized pieces based on file
> name.
> 
> After this series, gdb.base is still not parallel-clean.  There are
> some lurking "trickier" cases I omitted from this series, as they
> depend on new testsuite/lib infrastructure.  I plan to work through
> all the easy/obvious bits first, before starting to upstream that
> stuff.

I think I saw places in the context of the patches that could be
made to use build_executable instead of gdb_compile, and didn't look
tricky, but, this is all good forward progress as is!

Thanks a lot for doing this.

I tried skimming the series, but got extremely bored after
patch #1.  :-)

I'm all for this.

-- 
Pedro Alves