This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: breakpoint.c and infrun.c changes
- To: kevinb at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: RFA: breakpoint.c and infrun.c changes
- From: Stan Shebs <shebs at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Fri, 24 Sep 1999 11:41:41 -0700
- CC: gdb-patches at sourceware dot cygnus dot com, jimb at cygnus dot com, msnyder at cygnus dot com
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