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: automated testing comment [Re: time to workaround libc/13097 in fsf gdb?]

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.


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