Re: [Fwd: GDB 5.2.92 available]

[Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>]

Hi David,

> Yeah, I've been complaining about this one too; see discussion on
> gdb-patches with subject containing "Don't display values in output of
> pc-fp.exp".

I saw that when I was catching up on the gdb lists.

I'm happy with the status quo, I can see through the noise pretty
easily.  I reported it only because I wanted to account for every last
result difference from 5.2.91 to 5.2.92.

My reports are not going to strip out stuff in parentheses because there
are plenty of test names that use "(...)" for things such as C function
call syntax.  Also, "FAIL: ... (timeout)" is a giant red flag to me,
"(timeout)" usually means that gdb crashed and is much much worse than
an ordinary fail.

My suggestion would be to pick some strings that are not in use for
other purposes (if we can find any) and use those to mean "here is more
information which is not part of the test name".  Maybe:

  gdb.base/pc-fp.exp: get value of $fp // 0xNNNNNNNN

mec>   gdb.threads/killed.exp: GDB exits after multi-threaded program exits messily
carlton> This test is somewhat unstable for me on mainline even without
carlton> changing compilers.  (3.1/dwarf-2 is my most common compiler format.)

Oh, good, it's only a gdb bug, my wonderful test bed is not at fault
again, that would depress me.  :)

(I'm kinda punch-drunk from banging on my test bed half the night).

Michael C