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 09/23/2014 11:58 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2014 21:12:17 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 09/20/2014 10:30 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>>> But for example kernel-2.6.32-220.el6.x86_64 is "prelinked", see below.
>> Ah, didn't know that.  That's the sort of thing we should have in
>> comments in the code, or at least in the commit log.
> That apparently would not work, comment is added only after the problem is
> discovered.

:-)  Ah, OK.  I thought that that was already the reason you
didn't match the vDSO using AT_SYSINFO_EHDR in your original patch.

> 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 ...

Seems like Jan-Benedict Glaw is running a buildbot that includes GDB:

No idea what system that runs on, and whether he runs the testsuite
as well.

Sergio was also interested in setting up a GDB build bot.

There's the gcc compile farm too.

> And sure deploying automated testing with the current GDB testsuite as is
> would not work now automatically as the testsuite has fuzzy results.

We should be able to filter those out though.  Of course ideally we'd
just fix them to not be fuzzy...

> Although at least running new testcases (from the patch under review) would work which
> would be sufficient in this case (but not in other cases - regression cases).

Pedro Alves

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