From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15623 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2009 17:10:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 15611 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Aug 2009 17:10:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:10:18 +0000 Received: from mailhost4.vmware.com (mailhost4.vmware.com [10.16.67.124]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E241013441; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by mailhost4.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D73FEC9A44; Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:10:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A8D8297.4070700@vmware.com> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:27:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jakob Engblom CC: "tromey@redhat.com" , 'Pedro Alves' , "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: gdb reverse execution: how to actually run tests for it? References: <002001ca1f0e$4c9b74a0$e5d25de0$@com> <200908171251.07179.pedro@codesourcery.com> <024f01ca209e$02d81e40$08885ac0$@com> <200908191328.57310.pedro@codesourcery.com> <016201ca2163$11e994c0$35bcbe40$@com> In-Reply-To: <016201ca2163$11e994c0$35bcbe40$@com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00201.txt.bz2 Jakob Engblom wrote: >> Pedro> For the generic reverse execution tests --- reverse step, reverse >> Pedro> next, reverse continue, run to breakpoint in reverse, etc., etc., >> Pedro> I'd must prefer that we would get rid of the need for board files >> Pedro> at all. :-) >> >> Pedro> 1. for native targets, the only reverse solution we currently support > is >> Pedro> precord. I can't see why we can't default to testing the reverse > tests >> Pedro> with precord then. >> >> I agree. >> >> If the tests aren't enabled by default on some common platforms and thus >> run as a regular part of testing, you can be sure there will be >> regressions here. > > So the question here is: who will deal with removing the board file dependency? > I don't think we and our consultants doing the work for us are competent > enough... > > So is it OK if we submit a kit of tests which are structured in the same way as > the current reverse tests? Then we can deal with upgrading the tests later, once > the board file requirements has been fixed? I think that would be great.