From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8971 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2013 06:23:17 -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 8961 invoked by uid 89); 2 Aug 2013 06:23:16 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 06:23:15 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1V58lX-0003fl-Rb from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 23:23:07 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.39]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 1 Aug 2013 23:23:08 -0700 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 23:23:06 -0700 Message-ID: <51FB5024.9040001@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 06:23:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] introduce parallel mode References: <1374073124-23602-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <1374073124-23602-3-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <51E7E27E.5030800@codesourcery.com> <87txjsc7mw.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <51E86A71.3000301@codesourcery.com> <878v0lfb62.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <878v0lfb62.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00061.txt.bz2 On 08/02/2013 03:44 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: > I am not sure about emitting a FAIL. There won't be a corresponding > PASS. It would be more noticeable, which is a plus; but in the absence > of a conflict it isn't clearly a FAIL-worthy bug -- even after my series > we'll have a few of these. Emitting a FAIL explicitly gives writer an alert, otherwise, reviewers have to screen the test case manually, like what we do nowadays for duplicated test results. The test submission criteria is "zero-fail" in gdb.sum, and I afraid few people pays much attention on something suspicious in gdb.log. > > So for now I am just teeing the output to the log file: > > set inotify_pid [exec inotifywait -r -m -e move,create,delete . \ > --exclude $exclusion_re \ > |& tee -a $outdir/$tool.log &] > > This way it will show up in on the terminal but also in the log. That is good to me too. > > I'm open to discussion about your idea though. I'm really not sure. I don't have a strong opinion on either of them. I am OK to move on as what we are doing in these patches. We can switch to emitting-fail later if we think it is really necessary. -- Yao (齐尧)