Re: [Patch] Microblaze: Port of Linux gdbserver

[Michael Eager <eager@eagerm.com>]

On 12/18/14 00:58, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Eager [mailto:eager@eagercon.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2014 11:44 PM
> To: Pedro Alves; Ajit Kumar Agarwal; Joel Brobecker
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Vinod Kathail; Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala
> Subject: Re: [Patch] Microblaze: Port of Linux gdbserver
>
> On 12/15/14 10:02, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 10/17/2014 08:22 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
>>
>>> Gdb.base gdb testsuite is run and here is the status of gdb testsuite run for gdb.base.
>>>
>>>                   === gdb Summary ===
>>>
>>> # of expected passes            7804
>>> # of unexpected failures        2263
>>
>> Over 2000 unexpected failures is not very reassuring though.
>> Have you looked at the logs to get an idea of what might be broken?
>
>>> Bare metal test results show ~350 failures.  The gdbserver results should be similar.
>
> push_dummy_code feature is not implemented in Microblaze port.
> The total failure due to this functionality is 592 in bare metal. Of this  gdb.base failures are 357.
>
> May we know what you meant by ~350 failures.

Sorry, I was looking at GCC failures.

Running gdb regression test on bare metal gives the following:

# of expected passes		6481
# of unexpected failures	1053
# of expected failures		6
# of known failures		21
# of unresolved testcases	12
# of untested testcases	31
# of unsupported tests		21

That's 1053 failures, compared to the 2263 using gdbserver.


-- 
Michael Eager	 eager@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306  650-325-8077