From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 68205 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2015 05:36:59 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 68191 invoked by uid 89); 26 Oct 2015 05:36:58 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-yk0-f172.google.com Received: from mail-yk0-f172.google.com (HELO mail-yk0-f172.google.com) (209.85.160.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 05:36:57 +0000 Received: by ykaz22 with SMTP id z22so174313711yka.2 for ; Sun, 25 Oct 2015 22:36:55 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.129.4.150 with SMTP id 144mr24327326ywe.149.1445837815405; Sun, 25 Oct 2015 22:36:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.13.203.208 with HTTP; Sun, 25 Oct 2015 22:36:55 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <86CED23D-95E1-4A1F-B656-EDD2A2244FE7@dell.com> References: <86CED23D-95E1-4A1F-B656-EDD2A2244FE7@dell.com> Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 05:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Unreliable test suites? From: Doug Evans To: paul_koning Cc: gdb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg00099.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:58 PM, wrote: > I'm doing some work on gdb and want to run the testsuites to confirm that= I didn't mess it up. > > The problem is that a number of them seem to be quite unreliable. I've s= een test runs where gdb.btrace/step.exp and/or stepi.exp have a pile of fai= lures, but then when I rerun either just those tests, or the whole suite, t= hey pass. > > Since I haven't a clue how the reverse execution stuff works, I don't kno= w if this is expected. It seems strange. I also don't know what to do abo= ut it if it's not supposed to be like that. For now, I'm just running thing= s a couple of times, and if they pass once, I call it good enough. Those particular tests don't fail for me, even with check-parallel, but then it could depend on the target. OTOH several tests *are* flaky, especially under load. What I normally do is for the failures, run just those tests one at a time (to reduce load induced failures). And do that in the before and after trees. If they fail in the before tree too, then don't worry about it.