GDB 6 branch, 21st June?

GDB 6 branch, 21st June?

[Andrew Cagney]

Still scheduled for 21st, how is that looking?

Suggest people review the bug database to see what's been [accidently] 
fixed.

Andrew

Re: GDB 6 branch, 21st June?

[Andreas Jaeger]

Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:

> Still scheduled for 21st, how is that looking?

We currently have the following results from make check on
x86_64-linux-gnu:

                === gdb Summary ===

# of expected passes            8930
# of unexpected failures        100
# of unexpected successes       4
# of expected failures          46
# of known failures             23
# of unresolved testcases       3
# of untested testcases         6
# of unsupported tests          1
/usr/src/aj/build/gdb/gdb/testsuite/../../gdb/gdb version  2003-06-16-cvs -nx


How does this look in comparison with other platforms?

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.inka.de
    http://www.suse.de/~aj

Re: GDB 6 branch, 21st June?

[Andrew Cagney]

> Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> 
>> Still scheduled for 21st, how is that looking?
> 
> 
> We currently have the following results from make check on
> x86_64-linux-gnu:
> 
>                 === gdb Summary ===
> 
> # of expected passes            8930
> # of unexpected failures        100
> # of unexpected successes       4
> # of expected failures          46
> # of known failures             23
> # of unresolved testcases       3
> # of untested testcases         6
> # of unsupported tests          1
> /usr/src/aj/build/gdb/gdb/testsuite/../../gdb/gdb version  2003-06-16-cvs -nx
> 
> 
> How does this look in comparison with other platforms?

Pretty much on par.  break main, run, next definitly works.

Andrew

Re: GDB 6 branch, 21st June?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 08:39:20AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:
> >
> >
> >>Still scheduled for 21st, how is that looking?
> >
> >
> >We currently have the following results from make check on
> >x86_64-linux-gnu:
> >
> >                === gdb Summary ===
> >
> ># of expected passes            8930
> ># of unexpected failures        100
> ># of unexpected successes       4
> ># of expected failures          46
> ># of known failures             23
> ># of unresolved testcases       3
> ># of untested testcases         6
> ># of unsupported tests          1
> >/usr/src/aj/build/gdb/gdb/testsuite/../../gdb/gdb version  2003-06-16-cvs 
> >-nx
> >
> >
> >How does this look in comparison with other platforms?
> 
> Pretty much on par.  break main, run, next definitly works.

i386-linux is down at around ten failures.  Alpha's a bit higher,
sparc's really rotten (thousands).

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: GDB 6 branch, 21st June?

[Andreas Jaeger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1426 bytes --]

Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:

> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 08:39:20AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>> >Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:
>> >
>> >
>> >>Still scheduled for 21st, how is that looking?
>> >
>> >
>> >We currently have the following results from make check on
>> >x86_64-linux-gnu:
>> >
>> >                === gdb Summary ===
>> >
>> ># of expected passes            8930
>> ># of unexpected failures        100
>> ># of unexpected successes       4
>> ># of expected failures          46
>> ># of known failures             23
>> ># of unresolved testcases       3
>> ># of untested testcases         6
>> ># of unsupported tests          1
>> >/usr/src/aj/build/gdb/gdb/testsuite/../../gdb/gdb version  2003-06-16-cvs 
>> >-nx
>> >
>> >
>> >How does this look in comparison with other platforms?
>> 
>> Pretty much on par.  break main, run, next definitly works.
>
> i386-linux is down at around ten failures.  Alpha's a bit higher,

Ten failures sounds fine!

> sparc's really rotten (thousands).

I hope that even if we branch on the 21st, we have the possibility to
get fixes for those failures on x86_64 into the branch?  Unfortunatly
Michal is on vacation until the 28th and cannot do anything himself -
and I'm also occupied :-(

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.inka.de
    http://www.suse.de/~aj

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: GDB 6 branch, 21st June?

[Andrew Cagney]

> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:

>>> Pretty much on par.  break main, run, next definitly works.
> 
>>
>> i386-linux is down at around ten failures.  Alpha's a bit higher,

> Ten failures sounds fine!
> 
> 
>> sparc's really rotten (thousands).

IRIX and HP/UX are also several hundred but they sort of work.  So 100's 
about par.

> I hope that even if we branch on the 21st, we have the possibility to
> get fixes for those failures on x86_64 into the branch?  Unfortunatly
> Michal is on vacation until the 28th and cannot do anything himself -
> and I'm also occupied :-(

See: 15.2 Branch Commit Policy
http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdbint_15.html#SEC132

it's probably ok.

Andrew

Re: GDB 6 branch, 21st June?

[Elena Zannoni]

Andreas Jaeger writes:
 > Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
 > 
 > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 08:39:20AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
 > >> >Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> writes:
 > >> >
 > >> >
 > >> >>Still scheduled for 21st, how is that looking?
 > >> >
 > >> >
 > >> >We currently have the following results from make check on
 > >> >x86_64-linux-gnu:
 > >> >
 > >> >                === gdb Summary ===
 > >> >
 > >> ># of expected passes            8930
 > >> ># of unexpected failures        100
 > >> ># of unexpected successes       4
 > >> ># of expected failures          46
 > >> ># of known failures             23
 > >> ># of unresolved testcases       3
 > >> ># of untested testcases         6
 > >> ># of unsupported tests          1
 > >> >/usr/src/aj/build/gdb/gdb/testsuite/../../gdb/gdb version  2003-06-16-cvs 
 > >> >-nx
 > >> >
 > >> >
 > >> >How does this look in comparison with other platforms?
 > >> 
 > >> Pretty much on par.  break main, run, next definitly works.
 > >
 > > i386-linux is down at around ten failures.  Alpha's a bit higher,
 > 
 > Ten failures sounds fine!
 > 
 > > sparc's really rotten (thousands).
 > 
 > I hope that even if we branch on the 21st, we have the possibility to
 > get fixes for those failures on x86_64 into the branch?  Unfortunatly
 > Michal is on vacation until the 28th and cannot do anything himself -
 > and I'm also occupied :-(
 > 
 > Andreas
 > -- 
 >  Andreas Jaeger
 >   SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
 >    private aj@arthur.inka.de
 >     http://www.suse.de/~aj


Usually we allow for a period of bugfixes/stabilization on the branch.

Here are my results on RHL9:

TODAY:
                === gdb Summary ===

# of expected passes            8970
# of unexpected failures        98
# of unexpected successes       4
# of expected failures          46
# of known failures             22
# of unresolved testcases       3
# of unsupported tests          1


while on 6-6-2003 I was getting a few less failures:

                === gdb Summary ===

# of expected passes            8868
# of unexpected failures        87
# of unexpected successes       4
# of expected failures          46
# of known failures             21
# of unresolved testcases       3
# of unsupported tests          1


here are the regressions/differences:


+FAIL: gdb.base/break.exp: until 79
+FAIL: gdb.base/break.exp: break on default location, 2nd time
+FAIL: gdb.base/break.exp: break on default location, 3rd time
+FAIL: gdb.base/break.exp: break on default location, 4th time
+Running /home/ezannoni/gdb-sources/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/fileio.exp ...
+FAIL: gdb.base/fileio.exp: Renaming a directory to a non-empty directory returns ENOTEMPTY or EEXIST
 Running /home/ezannoni/gdb-sources/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.exp ...
-FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: next field 1
-FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: next field 2
-FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: next field 3
-FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: next field 4
+FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - char
+FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - short
+FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - int
+FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - long
+FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - longest
+FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - float
+FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - double
+FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: up print old r - doublest
+FAIL: gdb.threads/linux-dp.exp: philosopher is distinct: 3
+FAIL: gdb.threads/linux-dp.exp: philosopher is distinct: 7

Re: GDB 6 branch, 21st June?

[David Carlton]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 19:46:08 -0400, Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> said:

> Still scheduled for 21st, how is that looking?

Fine with me.  (I'll be on vacation for a week starting tomorrow, by
the way, for what that's worth.)  We're in a reasonable place in my
the merges from my branch; the stuff that's most likely to be
destabilizing is still in the future, so branching now makes sense
from that point of view.  I'm not aware of any current outstanding
problems with the symtab cleanups that I've been doing; I fixed the
only regression that Michael Chastain identified.

David Carlton
carlton@math.stanford.edu

Re: GDB 6 branch, 21st June?

[Elena Zannoni]

David Carlton writes:
 > On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 19:46:08 -0400, Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com> said:
 > 
 > > Still scheduled for 21st, how is that looking?
 > 
 > Fine with me.  (I'll be on vacation for a week starting tomorrow, by
 > the way, for what that's worth.)  We're in a reasonable place in my
 > the merges from my branch; the stuff that's most likely to be
 > destabilizing is still in the future, so branching now makes sense
 > from that point of view.  I'm not aware of any current outstanding
 > problems with the symtab cleanups that I've been doing; I fixed the
 > only regression that Michael Chastain identified.
 > 
 > David Carlton
 > carlton@math.stanford.edu

If you want to send out your next patch before you leave...

elena