From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8308 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2003 14:44:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 8301 invoked from network); 14 Dec 2003 14:44:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (65.49.0.121) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Dec 2003 14:44:21 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32A372B8F; Sun, 14 Dec 2003 09:44:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FDC773D.2030801@gnu.org> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2003 14:44:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [commit] Deprecate remaining STREQ uses References: <20031214082530.B536B4B412@berman.michael-chastain.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00199.txt.bz2 > It should be relatively easy to produce a script like that, assuming > that the tests you listed above constitute the minimal suite of tests > that are required to prove that a GDB port is alive (or at least if > the set of the tests required for that doesn't change too much with > time). If the set of tests changes too much, tracking them might not > be easy, given my free time (or should I say the lack thereof ;-)[1]. As an aside, it is in theory possible to use dejagnu to test a remote go32 system. I believe that the code is no longer used (it was developed to remote test cygwin) and presumably bitrotten. So no way is any one going to be expected to run that, and I don't know that there is much return on investment. Having said that, someone might find it useful as a tool that allows us to finally overhaul the *&!)($*&)(*@ coff code. > However, running the script once a month (on the then-latest snapshot, > I presume) is not something that I can afford, and I don't see anyone > else stepping forward to do that for me. I suspect michael might have been volunteering :-) > Since your proposal for deprecating counts minor releases, would it > be enough to request a run for every such release? That's what actually happens :-) Andrew