Re: [rfa/testsuite] make annota1 regexps more generous

Fernando Nasser
2002-12-03T15:46:16Z

(adding Elena)

It all depends on what emacs needs. If emacs expect the full path then
we have a regression. If emacs is happy with ${srcdir}/${subdir} or
both being omitted then we fix the test patterns.

Does someone know the answer?

Regards,
Fernando

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2002 at 03:24:59PM -0700, David Carlton wrote:
>
>>I noticed today that annota1.exp seems to be generating some spurious
>>FAILs on my machine, namely
>>
>>FAIL: gdb.base/annota1.exp: breakpoint info
>>FAIL: gdb.base/annota1.exp: backtrace from shlibrary
>>FAIL: gdb.base/annota1.exp: send SIGUSR1
>>FAIL: gdb.base/annota1.exp: break at 28
>>
>>In all cases, there's a regexp that looks for
>>${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}, but the ${srcdir}/ component is
>>missing. It doesn't seem to me that that should cause a fail; here's
>>a patch that makes the ${srcdir}/ component optional.
>>
>>Because of Kevin's recent patch to the breakpoint info failure, it
>>makes the most sense to me to make ${subdir}/ optional as well, given
>>that he has an instance where, on one (but not all?) of those tests,
>>both ${srcdir} and ${subdir} are missing. So that's what I've done.
>>(The patch looks messy, but that's just because the regexps in
>>question are so big: all I'm doing is adding a few parentheses and
>>question marks.)
>>
>>Of course, it's possible that this really is a regression and that I'm
>>not correctly understanding what those tests are looking for. I'm
>>using GCC 3.1 on Red Hat 7.3, for what that's worth.
>>
>>Just out of curiosity, how many unexpected failures should I be
>>getting? I'm usually getting 100 or so, which seems like an
>>unfortunately large number to me: either GDB has lots of regressions,
>>or the testsuite is misdiagnosing passes as failures, or there are
>>lots of FAILs that should be changed to XFAIL. I'm hoping that many
>>of them are misdiagnoses; maybe I'll spend some time looking at that
>>when I'm not teaching and when I'm sick of symbol tables.
>
>
> Depends on your compiler. I had it down to a dozen or so MI failures
> on x86 and a couple of XPASS's, using GCC 2.95.3. 3.2 is higher
> because I need to finish a lot of C++ work... then there are some
> random failures (a la pthreads; unpredictable). And new regressions of
> course.
>

--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9