This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Unreliable test suites?
- From: <Paul_Koning at Dell dot com>
- To: <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- Cc: <gdb at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:29:31 +0000
- Subject: Re: Unreliable test suites?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <86CED23D-95E1-4A1F-B656-EDD2A2244FE7 at dell dot com> <CAP9bCMTmBe+3xxkHx4CzcdWYZSeReWynAfG1VdCic9vLs985_g at mail dot gmail dot com>
> On Oct 26, 2015, at 1:36 AM, Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:58 PM, <Paul_Koning@dell.com> wrote:
>> I'm doing some work on gdb and want to run the testsuites to confirm that I didn't mess it up.
>>
>> The problem is that a number of them seem to be quite unreliable. I've seen test runs where gdb.btrace/step.exp and/or stepi.exp have a pile of failures, but then when I rerun either just those tests, or the whole suite, they pass.
>>
>> Since I haven't a clue how the reverse execution stuff works, I don't know if this is expected. It seems strange. I also don't know what to do about it if it's not supposed to be like that. For now, I'm just running things a couple of times, and if they pass once, I call it good enough.
>
> Those particular tests don't fail for me, even with check-parallel,
> but then it could depend on the target.
> OTOH several tests *are* flaky, especially under load.
>
> What I normally do is for the failures,
> run just those tests one at a time (to reduce load induced failures).
> And do that in the before and after trees.
> If they fail in the before tree too, then don't worry about it.
Thanks. I've been doing this sort of thing as well, and that helps. Running just one test as a confirmation seems to be particularly effective.
paul