From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11971 invoked by alias); 29 Jan 2010 16:49:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 11961 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jan 2010 16:49:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:49:31 +0000 Received: from int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.18]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o0TGn6Ka016536 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:49:06 -0500 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o0TGn5Jw002897; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:49:05 -0500 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o0TGn4FA023318; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:49:04 -0500 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id DD05A379974; Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:49:03 -0700 (MST) From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: Fix testsuite timeout clobbers References: <20100128215305.GA2813@caradoc.them.org> <20100129035950.GB26827@adacore.com> Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:49:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20100129035950.GB26827@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:59:50 +0400") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 X-SW-Source: 2010-01/txt/msg00648.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: Joel> With AdaCore's testsuite, a timeout means we've lost sync with Joel> debugger anyway - is there really an advantage to continuing a Joel> testcase when we get a timeout? Wouldn't it just as effective to Joel> abort the testcase after the first timeout? This would be nice to have. Whenever I manage to introduce a bug causing a timeout, I usually have to log into the tester and kill a bunch of stuff by hand, since otherwise it will just grind away for hours and hours... ugh. Tom