This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFA/DWARF] Set enum type "flag_enum" and "unsigned" flags at type creation.


> Sorry, I didn't have gcc-gnat installed and so missed this. I have it
> installed now. BTW. Are there any overviews of what are expected
> results? For make check RUNTESTFLAGS='--directory gdb.ada' I get:
> 
> 		=== gdb Summary ===
> 
> # of expected passes            490
> # of unexpected failures        29
> # of unexpected successes       8
> # of expected failures          2
> # of known failures             1
> # of unsupported tests          3
> 
> Is that reasonable? The amount of failures seems a bit high. The
> testsuite is not supposed to be (near) zero-fail?

IMO, it depends too much on the compiler used. Although we try to
actively contribute all our GCC patches the same way we contribute
our GDB patches, there are always a few that keep missing in the FSF
tree. To have near-clean results, I think you would need to use our
latest GPL'ed binary (we publish one each year). That's why you'll
see me generate C testcases as much as possible, even if the problem
is only showing up in Ada code.

Regardless of that, I don't expect anyone but me to really set their
environment up towards clean results. As long as it's not regressing
in your environment, I'm happy taking take care of accidental
regressions.

-- 
Joel


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]