[PATCH] Add test that exercises all bfd architecture, osabi, endian, etc. combinations
Fri Dec 9 14:56:00 GMT 2016
On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Pedro Alves <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 12/09/2016 01:56 PM, Yao Qi wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Pedro Alves <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> (long time passed...)
>>> This test would have caught the rl78 and rx problems that Yao
>>> fixed today. Clearly I should have pushed it in earlier so we would
>>> have caught those regressions earlier. :-/
>>> The only reason I didn't, was that minute mentioned above.
>>> I'm playing with splitting this test in 4 files, to bring that down
>>> in a parallel run. I'll repost with that.
> Below's what I had in mind. Splitting in 4 brings the time down to
> ~30 seconds for me, while splitting in 8 brings it to ~25 seconds.
> Looks like we hit diminishing returns, so I left it at 8.
> I also added kfail/skips for rl78 and rx, otherwise the test
> crashes GDB... Those can be removed as soon as your patches
> are in (I hope, I haven't tested whether the archs have
> further problems that would be exposed by this patch).
That looks good to me. After your test is pushed in, I'll push my
rl78 and rx patches in, and remove the kfail from this test. My
rl78 and rx patches should go to 7.12 branch, but I am not sure
this test case should go to 7.12 or not.
>> I'll extend all-architectures.exp to have a test "disassemble 0x0,+4"
>> for PR 20939. GDB now aborts due to the "foreign frame" again.
> That seems more dependent on host architecture than
> target architecture, I think? I.e., cycling over
> target architectures and disassembling won't really add
> more coverage?
Yes, PR 20939 is about host arch, but such test does find other issues,
like PR 20955. Other issues are shown up after the rl78 and rx segment
fault is fixed.
More information about the Gdb-patches