This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: branch comparison tables
- From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec dot gnu at mindspring dot com>
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 19:43:52 -0500
- Subject: Re: branch comparison tables
- References: <20040122230758.B60AB4B104@berman.michael-chastain.com>
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 06:07:58PM -0500, Michael Chastain wrote:
> Here are some new tables:
>
> http://www.shout.net/~mec/sunday/2004-01-19-branch
>
> This is all four branches (6.0, HEAD, carlton_dictionary-branch,
> drow-cplus-branch) run with the test suite from gdb HEAD.
> So the compare-by-gdb tables are actually useful here.
>
> Looking at compare-by-gdb, at the sub-tables with "as=2.14, ld=2.14".
> There is not a lot of variation based on the version of binutils.
> So sub-tables #2 #3 #6 #7 #10 #11 #16 #17 #22 #23 #28 #29 ought to
> cover all the interesting information.
>
> I would like to do more of this. Conceptually, I've got it worked out
> that the version of the gdb test suite and the version of gdb are
> independent attributes of a test run. I just have to figure out how to
> present it usefully, and then write some more Perl.
Neat.
By the way, FYI: At this moment, the FAILs (only, not looking at the
kfails at the moment) for GCC 3.4 and GCC HEAD are in several
categories:
- gdb bugs
- testsuite bugs
- java tests, blah
- namespace issue that David is looking at
I believe that no more of them are caused by GCC. The
multi_line_while_statement failures in your tables were, but I checked
in a fix this morning.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer