From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28069 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2002 23:11:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 28060 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2002 23:11:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Nov 2002 23:11:27 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gA5NBHr26128; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 15:11:17 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Fernando Nasser , cagney Subject: Re: [rfa/testsuite] Don't display values in output of pc-fp.exp References: <3DC84C23.8070801@redhat.com> From: David Carlton Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 15:11:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <3DC84C23.8070801@redhat.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.4 (Common Lisp) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00076.txt.bz2 On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 17:54:27 -0500, Andrew Cagney said: >> The tests in pc-fp.exp display the actual values of $pc and $fp in >> their PASS messages. That makes regression testing a bit more >> annoying for me: the value of $fp changes with every change I make >> to GDB. Is it okay to tweak the PASS messages not to display those >> values? > As far as I know, anything in trailing paren should be ignored when > comparing test results. You might want to tweak your script (I've > attached mine) to do this. Wow: your script is complicated. I just do diff -u (first file) (second file) | grep -v schedlock I could do something more complicated than that, of course; on the other hand, I'm still not convinced that I should. It seems to me that details like the value of the variables in question shouldn't be in gdb.sum: if I want that level of information, I'll look in gdb.log. I think there's a virtue in having gdb.sum in a format that's easily checkable without worrying about parsing issues: the easier it is to do regression testing, the more often it will happen. > Also, why is FP/PC changing? Your GDB changes shouldn't affect the > behavior of the target program's $fp / $pc. That's a good point; I hadn't thought of that. I'm actually not entirely sure what it is that leads to the value of $fp changing from test run to test run. But I will make the empirical observation that it does change from test run to test run, and I'd be shocked if those changes reflected introduction of new bugs into GDB. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu