This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: First attempt at new Sunday test project
- From: Michael Elizabeth Chastain <mec at shout dot net>
- To: ezannoni at redhat dot com, gdb-testers at sources dot redhat dot com, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:12:48 -0400
- Subject: Re: First attempt at new Sunday test project
Aw, cool!!
If you have any feedback for me on using the scripts I would welcome it,
as you are the second user (first one who is not me). I'm sure there is
a lot of confusing stuff and a lot of under-documented stuff.
You have to run gdb 5.3 so that we can look for regressions from
gdb 5.3 to gdb HEAD. The "compare by gdb" table is what I use to
see if gdb HEAD is releasable.
It would be helpful to add gcc 2.95.3.
Testing with a lot of different binutils is a low-yield use of machine
resources. That is, I hardly ever see differences based on binutils, and it
adds a lot of time. So if you are low on CPU time then you could cut the
binutils down to just the vendor version.
Similarly you can cut down on the gcc's if you need to save CPU time
or disk space.
So I would recommend:
gcc 2.95.3
gcc 3.3
gcc HEAD
binutils 2.14
gdb 5.3
gdb HEAD
gdb gdb_whatever_branch
-gdwarf-2
-gstabs+
That will get you about 90% of the good coverage for seeing if
gdb has problems.
But this leaves out the vendor gcc + vendor binutils combination which
might be important because of NPTL. You might want to add those.
gcc HEAD with -gstabs+ has a serious issue. I filed a gcc PR about it.
Don't remember the number off hand. Looks like it's not fixed yet.
Michael C