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: [Patch] Microblaze: Port of Linux gdbserver

On 12/18/14 00:58, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Eager []
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 11:44 PM
To: Pedro Alves; Ajit Kumar Agarwal; Joel Brobecker
Cc:; Vinod Kathail; Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala
Subject: Re: [Patch] Microblaze: Port of Linux gdbserver

On 12/15/14 10:02, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 10/17/2014 08:22 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:

Gdb.base gdb testsuite is run and here is the status of gdb testsuite run for gdb.base.

                  === gdb Summary ===

# of expected passes            7804
# of unexpected failures        2263

Over 2000 unexpected failures is not very reassuring though.
Have you looked at the logs to get an idea of what might be broken?

Bare metal test results show ~350 failures.  The gdbserver results should be similar.

push_dummy_code feature is not implemented in Microblaze port.
The total failure due to this functionality is 592 in bare metal. Of this  gdb.base failures are 357.

May we know what you meant by ~350 failures.

Sorry, I was looking at GCC failures.

Running gdb regression test on bare metal gives the following:

# of expected passes		6481
# of unexpected failures	1053
# of expected failures		6
# of known failures		21
# of unresolved testcases	12
# of untested testcases	31
# of unsupported tests		21

That's 1053 failures, compared to the 2263 using gdbserver.

Michael Eager
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306  650-325-8077

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