From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16024 invoked by alias); 14 Mar 2016 12:45:18 -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 16009 invoked by uid 89); 14 Mar 2016 12:45:17 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:45:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62494486A9; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:45:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u2ECjDc1022979; Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:45:14 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve analysis of racy testcases To: Antoine Tremblay , Sergio Durigan Junior References: <87r3gcgm91.fsf@redhat.com> <878u22wxgk.fsf@redhat.com> Cc: GDB Patches From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <56E6B259.4080007@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 12:45:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-03/txt/msg00209.txt.bz2 On 03/14/2016 12:31 PM, Antoine Tremblay wrote: > Just to let know you that the script worked as expected during my > testing and it's quite nice to see. The tests however were more flacky > then expected so I can't use the output directly guess I'll need a never > ignore this test list... (like base/break.exp). Still it's very helpful. Could you share a bit more on what you found? I wouldn't expect break.exp to be flaky. I think some tests that use gdb_test_stdio are still flaky with gdbserver, but break.exp does not seem to use it. Thanks, Pedro Alves