This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com 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: How big should bigcore.core be?

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
To: Andrew Cagney <cagney at gnu dot org>
Cc: Mark Kettenis <kettenis at chello dot nl>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:33:01 -0500
Subject: Re: How big should bigcore.core be?
References: <200402192226.i1JMQI07000830@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <40354676.6010409@gnu.org>

On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 06:27:50PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >If the latter is true, I really think we should disable this test by
> >default and only enable it on systems where we know we won't generate
> >ridiculously large files running the risk of crashing the machine.
> >For my work on GDB, I regularly use machines that are not mine, and
> >I'd really hate it if I crashed those.
> 
> It's catch-22.  As seen with the assembler tests, unless these are 
> enabled, everyone ignores them :-(

But Mark has a point in that the unimplemented assembler tests are a
lot less problematic for the host system than this test.  How about a
list of systems to run on, a list of systems not safe to run on, and
issuing an UNTESTED for everything else?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

References:
- How big should bigcore.core be?
  - From: Mark Kettenis
- Re: How big should bigcore.core be?
  - From: Andrew Cagney

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