This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: 1 GCC regressions, 1 new, with your patch on 2001-07-21T09:30:01Z.
- To: ac131313 at cygnus dot com
- Subject: Re: 1 GCC regressions, 1 new, with your patch on 2001-07-21T09:30:01Z.
- From: Geoff Keating <geoffk at geoffk dot org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 22:09:43 -0700
- CC: gcc-regression at gcc dot gnu dot org, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com, nathan at codesourcery dot com
- References: <200107211225.f6LCPA730345@maat.cygnus.com> <200107211624.JAA01319@geoffk.org> <3B5C9BF0.3040304@cygnus.com>
- Reply-to: Geoff Keating <geoffk at redhat dot com>
> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 17:49:36 -0400
> From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
> >> The new failures are:
> >> native gdb.sum gdb.base/selftest.exp:
> >
> >
> > This was interesting. After two months, the GCC tree has finally been
> > stable for long enough for the tester to try to update its binutils
> > tree. Unfortunately, this means it updates its _sources_, and it
> > turns out that selftest.exp requires you keep around the old gdb
> > sources so it can debug itself.
> >
> > Since selftest.exp doesn't really test the compiler at all, I have
> > disabled it.
>
>
> I'm not sure what you mean,
>
> As far as I know, selftest uses the just built native GDB to test the
> just built native GDB. The test being skipped when the just built GDB
> isn't native (it doesn't make sense). I think GCC should retain the
> test since it is testing GDB against a very large program.
There is no "just-built" gdb. GCC is tested against a known-working
gdb, built with the system compiler.
--
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org>