From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 80382 invoked by alias); 9 Dec 2016 14:58:51 -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 80372 invoked by uid 89); 9 Dec 2016 14:58:50 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:2066, 7.12, H*f:sk:bb875ba, H*i:sk:s-POXgq 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 ESMTP; Fri, 09 Dec 2016 14:58:49 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4955363321; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 14:58:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn03.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.3]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uB9EwltF024158; Fri, 9 Dec 2016 09:58:47 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add test that exercises all bfd architecture, osabi, endian, etc. combinations To: Yao Qi References: <1457541365-5637-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <3dd7c6fe-b195-1b6a-4bf4-ffdae0bf7485@redhat.com> Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <5dd350e7-b2fd-e9eb-e4f0-faf8e24b1a35@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2016 14:58:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-12/txt/msg00241.txt.bz2 On 12/09/2016 02:56 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 12/09/2016 01:56 PM, Yao Qi wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >>>> (long time passed...) >>>> >>>> This test would have caught the rl78 and rx problems that Yao >>>> fixed today. Clearly I should have pushed it in earlier so we would >>>> have caught those regressions earlier. :-/ >>>> The only reason I didn't, was that minute mentioned above. >>>> I'm playing with splitting this test in 4 files, to bring that down >>>> in a parallel run. I'll repost with that. >>>> >> >> Below's what I had in mind. Splitting in 4 brings the time down to >> ~30 seconds for me, while splitting in 8 brings it to ~25 seconds. >> Looks like we hit diminishing returns, so I left it at 8. >> >> I also added kfail/skips for rl78 and rx, otherwise the test >> crashes GDB... Those can be removed as soon as your patches >> are in (I hope, I haven't tested whether the archs have >> further problems that would be exposed by this patch). >> >> WDYT? >> > > That looks good to me. OK, I'll push it in then. > After your test is pushed in, I'll push my > rl78 and rx patches in, and remove the kfail from this test. Perfect. > My > rl78 and rx patches should go to 7.12 branch, but I am not sure > this test case should go to 7.12 or not. Yeah, should probably leave it on master only. > >>> >>> I'll extend all-architectures.exp to have a test "disassemble 0x0,+4" >>> for PR 20939. GDB now aborts due to the "foreign frame" again. >> >> That seems more dependent on host architecture than >> target architecture, I think? I.e., cycling over >> target architectures and disassembling won't really add >> more coverage? > > Yes, PR 20939 is about host arch, but such test does find other issues, > like PR 20955. Other issues are shown up after the rl78 and rx segment > fault is fixed. OK, I see. Thanks, Pedro Alves