This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: automated testing comment [Re: time to workaround libc/13097 in fsf gdb?]
- From: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:45:29 +0200
- Subject: Re: automated testing comment [Re: time to workaround libc/13097 in fsf gdb?]
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5412E3AC dot 80203 at redhat dot com> <20140912123320 dot GA8704 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <5412EB1F dot 40309 at redhat dot com> <20140917201049 dot GA22880 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <541C3FCF dot 4000400 at redhat dot com> <541C409E dot 6010408 at redhat dot com> <20140920213033 dot GA6255 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <541F2311 dot 1040404 at redhat dot com> <20140923105855 dot GA10164 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <54216860 dot 7060008 at redhat dot com>
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:32:32 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
> :-) Ah, OK. I thought that that was already the reason you
> didn't match the vDSO using AT_SYSINFO_EHDR in your original patch.
OK, true, I could make some such patch already in the original patch but
I found that part obvious. :-)
> > It would be found by automated testing upon submitting patch for reviews, such
> > as I have seen done through Jenkins connected to Gerrit.
> Or even after the patch is in, and we can revert if build / test bots
> find a problem. Seems like a simpler step that I don't think anyone
> would object to ...
I find the primary advantage that it tests the patches already before review.
The same way the patches are automatically checked for proper code formatting.
So one no longer has to lose time on those mechanical parts during reviews,
which is one of the reasons I stopped doing them regularly (if I ever did).
> Seems like Jan-Benedict Glaw is running a buildbot that includes GDB:
> Sergio was also interested in setting up a GDB build bot.
> There's the gcc compile farm too.
I do not know who is running which bots but so far it seems to me I am the
only one paying some attention to their results - or are there other
regression bugreports I miss on the list?
> We should be able to filter those out though. Of course ideally we'd
> just fix them to not be fuzzy...
I do not see how to filter them automatically. The gdb.mi/mi-nsintrall.exp
regression today looks exactly like one of the many nightly fuzzy results but
in the end it has proven to be a real regression.