From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4254 invoked by alias); 14 Nov 2008 15:32:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 4228 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Nov 2008 15:32:10 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout7.012.net.il (HELO mtaout7.012.net.il) (84.95.2.19) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 15:31:29 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout7.012.net.il by i-mtaout7.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KAB00I00XPGDF00@i-mtaout7.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:33:18 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.205.49]) by i-mtaout7.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KAB003ZJXVH5EC0@i-mtaout7.012.net.il>; Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:33:18 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:04:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFA] Darwin/x86 port (v2 - part 0) In-reply-to: <491D93D8.6060007@codesourcery.com> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il To: Stan Shebs Cc: gingold@adacore.com, stan@codesourcery.com, mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <3A152A70-4355-440D-839F-A4EAC36C530B@adacore.com> <200811131452.mADEq21U018058@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <406742BB-4F37-406B-B4E3-75C8DD2DBD03@adacore.com> <491C6C09.4050300@codesourcery.com> <2C387CFB-1541-41B5-964C-68692E078BFA@adacore.com> <491D93D8.6060007@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-11/txt/msg00341.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 07:06:00 -0800 > From: Stan Shebs > CC: Stan Shebs , Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > # of expected passes 4299 > > # of unexpected failures 3107 > Hmmm, that's kind of high, even for an initial port. Is it mainly that > shared library bits are missing, or something else? > > My natural inclination is to accept the code into the trunk after review > - I suspect that the next round of changes will be more invasive into > the rest of GDB, and it would be easier to consider each of those > separately from the basic port. But, I have a track record of being too > optimistic on this strategy, ahem. :-) What do other people think? I'd like to know whether there are any large sets of failed tests that have something in common (a.k.a. unsupported GDB features), before I make up my mind.