From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 67108 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2015 13:55:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 67090 invoked by uid 89); 19 Aug 2015 13:55:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:55:30 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF5DC9D76E; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:55:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from reynosa.quesejoda.com (vpn-60-126.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.60.126]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t7JDtRcd011167; Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:55:27 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH][1/n] dwarf2out refactoring for early (LTO) debug To: Richard Biener References: <55D38853.5010702@redhat.com> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, jason@redhat.com, gdb@sourceware.org From: Aldy Hernandez Message-ID: <55D48ACF.5090707@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2015 13:57:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg01088.txt.bz2 On 08/19/2015 06:45 AM, Richard Biener wrote: [copying gdb folks] > On Tue, 18 Aug 2015, Aldy Hernandez wrote: > >> On 08/18/2015 07:20 AM, Richard Biener wrote: [snip] > The patch below has passed bootstrap & regtest on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu > as well as gdb testing. Twice unpatched, twice patched - results seem > to be somewhat unstable!? I even refrained from using any -j with > make check-gdb... maybe it's just contrib/test_summary not coping well > with gdb? any hints? Difference between unpatched run 1 & 2 is > for example > > --- results.unpatched 2015-08-19 15:08:36.152899926 +0200 > +++ results.unpatched2 2015-08-19 15:29:46.902060797 +0200 > @@ -209,7 +209,6 @@ > WARNING: remote_expect statement without a default case?! > WARNING: remote_expect statement without a default case?! > WARNING: remote_expect statement without a default case?! > -FAIL: gdb.base/varargs.exp: print find_max_float_real(4, fc1, fc2, fc3, > fc4) > FAIL: gdb.cp/inherit.exp: print g_vD > FAIL: gdb.cp/inherit.exp: print g_vE > FAIL: gdb.cp/no-dmgl-verbose.exp: setting breakpoint at 'f(std::string)' > @@ -238,6 +237,7 @@ > UNRESOLVED: gdb.fortran/types.exp: set print sevenbit-strings > FAIL: gdb.fortran/whatis_type.exp: run to MAIN__ > WARNING: remote_expect statement without a default case?! > +FAIL: gdb.gdb/complaints.exp: print symfile_complaints->root->fmt > WARNING: remote_expect statement without a default case?! > WARNING: remote_expect statement without a default case?! > WARNING: remote_expect statement without a default case?! > @@ -362,12 +362,12 @@ > === gdb Summary === > > -# of expected passes 30881 > +# of expected passes 30884 > # of unexpected failures 284 > # of unexpected successes 2 > -# of expected failures 85 > +# of expected failures 83 > # of unknown successes 2 > -# of known failures 60 > +# of known failures 59 > # of unresolved testcases 6 > # of untested testcases 32 > # of unsupported tests 165 > > the sames changes randomly appear/disappear in the patched case. > Otherwise patched/unpatched agree. This is somewhat expected. Well, at least I never found a good explanation. Some tests seemed to be thread related and inconsistent. Others, I have no idea. After running the tests enough times I got a feeling of which tests would always pass, and use those as reference. It was confusing at first. Perhaps the GDB folks could shed some light? I've found them very helpful. Also, -j made things worse. I never used it. Aldy