This is the mail archive of the
gdb-prs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
[Bug gdb/14971] Failures in gdb.base/longjmp.exp
- From: "dblaikie at gmail dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: gdb-prs at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:05:20 +0000
- Subject: [Bug gdb/14971] Failures in gdb.base/longjmp.exp
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-14971-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14971
--- Comment #9 from David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail dot com> 2013-01-17 19:05:20 UTC ---
> I tend to think it isn't too bad to live with a spurious
> FAIL or two. This is pretty much the normal state for
> the gdb test suite anyway.
Some backstory:
I'm currently running a modified version of the GDB 7.5 suite against Clang in
a buildbot. Apart from two flakey tests (tls.exp and funcargs.exp) I seem to
have it pretty much stable. Failures are generally actionable & appropriately
blamed, etc.
I'm now trying to upstream the appropriate changes (things like the patches
I've already sent to gdb and gcc) and get to the point where I can run a
buildbot using GDB ToT and Clang ToT. I'll only be able to do this if I can get
stable red/green results - a few spurious failures are going to block that
effort. So, one way or another, I will be trying to find a way to resolve these
failures. While upgrading glibc on my build slaves may be one solution, I was
hoping for a solution that would scale better to other machines/users (so that
developers of GDB or Clang attempting to reproduce failures or just running the
suite on a new change to avoid committing regressions wouldn't see spurious
extra failures that could lead them down the wrong path)
--
Configure bugmail: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.