From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29413 invoked by alias); 19 Apr 2013 14:47:17 -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 29403 invoked by uid 89); 19 Apr 2013 14:47:17 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Apr 2013 14:47:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3JElB3d020005 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:47:11 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r3JEl9ZW004114 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:47:10 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pierre Muller Subject: Re: [0/27] RFC: fix reports from the CPython checker References: <87ehe638ww.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <83obda1tx7.fsf@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2013 18:08:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <83obda1tx7.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 19 Apr 2013 17:23:00 +0300") Message-ID: <87k3nywpaq.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-04/txt/msg00613.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii writes: Eli> Would it be a good idea to run it automatically by ARI? I don't think so. I wouldn't mind if someone wants to try, but it isn't totally easy to run (the checker explodes on some non-Python-using files in gdb, so I only run it on the Python-using files) and it still gives a lot of false reports (105 by my count) plus a couple unhandled exceptions from the checker. Tom