From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9530F3871029 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 15:00:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [192.222.164.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 23FDE1E5FD; Tue, 17 Mar 2020 11:00:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Give up after consecutive timeouts in completion-support.exp To: Tom de Vries , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20200316175925.GA5989@delia> <5ffff0ef-e2f6-82ea-306c-a661e9ae830c@suse.de> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 11:00:21 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5ffff0ef-e2f6-82ea-306c-a661e9ae830c@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US-large Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2020 15:00:23 -0000 On 2020-03-17 10:53 a.m., Tom de Vries wrote: > Well, here's how I reasoned. > > Say for a string "abcdefgh" we test "a", "ab", "abc", etc. > > If we timeout at "a", there is the change that it's f.i. specific to > one-letter matches, and such timeouts will not occur of "ab" and so on. > > So, we try to establish a pattern: if "a", "ab" and "abc" timeout, then > we think there's a good chance that "abcd" will also timeout, and we > give up. > > Having said that, my reasoning above is more concerned with not testing > too little. Your reasoning is more concerned with having less timeouts. > So I think both approaches are valid, they're just different trade-off > points. > > I'm fine with submitting a follow up patch that gives up after the first > timeout, if you prefer that. > > Thanks, > - Tom > Ok, that's fine with me. Simon