From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@ericsson.com>
To: <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: automated testing comment [Re: time to workaround libc/13097 in fsf gdb?]
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:16:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54218EB4.4080906@ericsson.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <54216860.7060008@redhat.com>
On 2014-09-23 08:32 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> And sure deploying automated testing with the current GDB testsuite as is
>> would not work now automatically as the testsuite has fuzzy results.
>
> We should be able to filter those out though. Of course ideally we'd
> just fix them to not be fuzzy...
If we adopt automated testing as part of the process and those fuzzy tests are
in the way, it will help identify them and it will give some a motivation to fix
them.
What is bugging me is also the failing test cases in master. In order to make
Jenkins (or similar) useful, you need a baseline where everything is green.
Otherwise all patches that will get tested will fail and it will be difficult
to weed out the actually failing patches from the good ones.
Unless there is actually a way to make a pass/fail/unresolved "diff" that
compares the patch's results to those of the latest master commit's results.
Last time I checked, it didn't seem obvious.
Simon
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-23 15:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-11 16:25 time to workaround libc/13097 in fsf gdb? Doug Evans
2014-09-11 16:37 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-12 11:55 ` Jan Kratochvil
2014-09-12 12:14 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-12 12:33 ` Jan Kratochvil
2014-09-12 12:46 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-17 20:10 ` Jan Kratochvil
2014-09-19 14:38 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-19 14:41 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-20 21:30 ` Jan Kratochvil
2014-09-21 19:12 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-21 19:46 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-23 23:05 ` Doug Evans
2014-09-26 12:09 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-22 18:35 ` Jan Kratochvil
2014-09-23 11:49 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-28 13:41 ` Jan Kratochvil
2014-09-29 10:36 ` Pedro Alves
2014-10-03 13:09 ` Gary Benson
2014-10-07 23:16 ` Doug Evans
2014-09-23 12:05 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-26 12:05 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-23 10:59 ` automated testing comment [Re: time to workaround libc/13097 in fsf gdb?] Jan Kratochvil
2014-09-23 12:32 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-23 12:45 ` Jan Kratochvil
2014-09-23 13:30 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-23 13:57 ` Jan Kratochvil
2014-09-23 14:48 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-23 15:53 ` Jan Kratochvil
2014-09-23 15:56 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-24 13:22 ` Andreas Arnez
2014-09-24 15:23 ` Ulrich Weigand
2014-09-25 7:11 ` Andreas Arnez
2014-09-25 8:20 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-25 10:52 ` Jan Kratochvil
2014-09-23 14:54 ` Doug Evans
2014-09-23 15:16 ` Simon Marchi [this message]
2014-09-23 14:48 ` Doug Evans
2014-09-23 14:59 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-20 19:50 ` time to workaround libc/13097 in fsf gdb? Jan Kratochvil
2014-09-23 11:18 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-23 13:16 ` Gary Benson
2014-10-09 20:09 ` Jan Kratochvil
2014-10-09 22:07 ` Pedro Alves
2014-09-13 1:06 ` Doug Evans
2014-09-17 20:13 ` Jan Kratochvil
2014-09-23 21:35 ` Doug Evans
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54218EB4.4080906@ericsson.com \
--to=simon.marchi@ericsson.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox