Re: A testsuite update, for the curious

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

Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> One FAIL from gdb.gdb/complaints.exp.

Hey, I'm not getting any FAILs from gdb.gdb/complaints.exp in any
of my tested configurations.

> a testsuite bug that only shows up with a relative path to configure,

You probably already figured this out:

  # TODO: gdb.base/corefile.exp cannot handle relative objdir
  #       it does "cd ${objdir}/${subdir}; ${binfile};" when
  #       ${binfile} == ${objdir}/${subdir}/${testfile}.

The fix is probably just s/${binfile}/${testfile} .

BTW I am unable to run corefile.exp on native i686-pc-linux-gnu red-hat-8.0
because red hat 8.0 turns on the kernel flag for core file names so that
the names are 'core.12345' instead of 'core'.

> And something else is wrong in print-threads.exp; I occasionally see a
> SIGSEGV in the testsuite log.  But I can't reproduce it often enough to
> get a good look at it.

I get sporadic ERRORs in gdb.trace/actions.exp.  I am not seeing this
behavior in print-threads.exp and I am running 100+ of them per week
(I run a lot of "infrastructure" test runs that I don't publish, but I
would notice a bunch of core-dump-induced madness).  I do see one other
print-threads.exp problem that manifests with sourceware TCL+Expect+Dejagnu
and does not manifest with stock TCL+Expect+Dejagnu.  So it's quite
possible that there are races that never get scheduled depending on
subtle things like the version of Expect that you test with.

Michael C