This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: RFA: breakpoint.c and infrun.c changes



   Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 10:37:07 -0700
   From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com>

   I've tested with the d10v simulator and saw no regressions.

Great!

   I tried to test the i960, but the i960 simulator did not work well for
   me.  I'll try against an actual board if you think it's important. 
   (After looking at the nightly testing results for this target, I have
   doubts about being able to get it to work properly.  The one recent
   test that did work properly had 1034 failures.  But most of the recent
   and even not so recent tests show that the testsuite did not complete
   successfully.)

I think we can safely skip over testing the i960 for this patch.  I
would like to know why the testing is having trouble, but that's not
your problem...

   I've tested on the alpha (running linux), but I'm not sure what to
   make of the results.  On the one hand, I do see *fewer* failures after
   I apply my patch.  But I've run the test suite a number of times and
   get different results each time I run it.  The good thing is that
   there aren't any new failures in the breakpoint or single step tests. 
   (I ran my tests on the machine called `dot'.)

Hmmm, when I ran tests on Alpha Linux a couple months ago I was
getting pretty consistent results.  Perhaps you could save a couple of
the varying logs and point me at them?

In any case, the results sound good, and the patch has been tested
with a wider variety of targets than most patches get, so there's no
reason not to check in now.  If you get it in today, then it can be in
Monday's snap for everybody to try out for themselves.

								Stan


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]