This is the mail archive of the 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]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] PR threads/10729: x86 hw watchpoints and non-stop mode

On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 19:01:20 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > Currently I run the testsuite already in multiple modes and some testcases run
> > in duplicate configurations that way, costing needless time+power=money.
> I'd be fine to restrict them to native runs (that's how Dan originally
> designed them),

If I change something in gdbserver I run just the testsuite in gdbserver mode.
If there is such restriction I would miss such change.

Moreover it seems overcomplicated to me to combine one mode into other modes.
I run FSF GDB HEAD now in 5 modes (default dwarf4-nogdbtypes dwarf4-gdbtypes
gdbindex gdbserver); in fact 15 modes (x86_64/x86_64-m32/i686), I will run it
in more modes soon.  Finding fast what has regressed from which set of tests
has failed is already tricky as the testsuite already runs some tests in
different modes than expected.

According to my various "Regression" mails to gdb-patches you can see it is
already not enough to regression test GDB in a single mode only.  So if one
has to run multiple modes they could be run really purely in their mode.

The same applies to PIE mode, if one debugs PIE code one runs the whole GDB
testsuite in PIE mode (there are still some bugs/incompletenesses in PIE...).

> and get back to this once we have better support for
> testing everything in extended-remote mode.

We will still need to test GDB in legacy mode for compatibility reasons with
non-FSF gdbservers and existing user setups of gdbserver.  I do not see what
will change with adding the new extended-remote mode to the existing set of
modes required to be run.

> > As a less ambitious change if you do not like gdbserver_start_extended in this
> > testcase we can change it.
> That'd be my preference.

AFAIK there currently does not exist any extended-mode board file so there
does not make sense to check in a testcase requiring it.

> > But gdb.server/ext-*.exp do exactly the same so they have to be
> > changed all together. 
> I disagree, they don't have to.

With they both run
the server in extended mode.

There is a difference in default mode gdb.server/ext-*.exp also run it in
extended mode while this testcases runs in linux-nat mode in such case.

Our opinion probably differs in that I find running GDB testing only in the
default mode as insufficient.


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