This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: racy tests
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: David Edelsohn <dje dot gcc at gmail dot com>, Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>, GDB Patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 09:04:34 -0700
- Subject: Re: racy tests
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAGWvnykYB_ObOPQm7dD2h_8zhhraEAt6MimdBu=4G2P9qCg3eg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150709232141 dot GA7406 at adacore dot com> <CAGWvnyn342DKXnOdh+un86NaZaQ6d-Dd+XdSfEK1nNn3+OhL6Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150710034255 dot GB7406 at adacore dot com> <CAGWvnymxrXhGwC5oxXU_LpKhvY-KdsqgzEwihAV4ssS_Lekv6Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <559FD7C6 dot 2060502 at redhat dot com> <CADPb22T+zM2u8x3Qy5voKogFAZz80utR2ueqRz4ZOonP8h4tXg at mail dot gmail dot com> <55A1665E dot 2070404 at redhat dot com>
On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
> One thing that I'd like is for this to be part of the testsuite
> itself, rather than separate machinery the buildbot uses. That way,
> everyone benefits from it, and so that we all maintain/evolve it.
> I think this is important, because people are often confused that
> they do a test run before patch, apply patch, run test, and see
> confusing new FAILs their patch can't explain.
No disagreement there.
I would build it on top of what's there now.
[I'd rather build this up in layers, and not have
overly complicated lower layers.]
A next question that arises is maintaining history.
E.g., how does one diff the results of the current run
with the current "gold standard"?
The way I do it here is to have separate files that augment the
XFAIL/KFAIL markers in the test (it's far easier to maintain a few
files than editing each test's .exp file)
but I'm not sure it scales well.
[E.g., I need to keep separate files for different compilers,
though there is a #include mechanism for common stuff.]
Alternatively,
If a test run could take as input the gdb.sum file from a baseline
run (e.g., from an unpatched trunk) then that could work.
Buildbot could use the previous run, and Joe-Developer
could either use as input a buildbot run's output file
or run the testsuite twice (e.g., with/without the patch-under-test).
[I wouldn't use gdb.sum specifically, I'm just using it here
for illustration's sake.]