From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24793 invoked by alias); 27 Jul 2004 04:16:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24729 invoked from network); 27 Jul 2004 04:16:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO atlantic.mail.pas.earthlink.net) (207.217.120.179) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 27 Jul 2004 04:16:02 -0000 Received: from ip216-26-76-134.dsl.du.teleport.com ([216.26.76.134] helo=grayscale.canids) by atlantic.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1BpJNa-00058d-00; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:15:54 -0700 Received: from grayscale.canids (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grayscale.canids (Postfix) with ESMTP id 576481341B; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:15:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Felix Lee To: Michael Chastain Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [proposal/testsuite] require build == host References: <20040725000344.F322F4B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> <20040725011817.A393A1317A@grayscale.canids> <20040725015139.GA14898@nevyn.them.org> <20040725074042.2F25A131B5@grayscale.canids> <410503E2.nailI8411PP3Y@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <410503E2.nailI8411PP3Y@mindspring.com> on Mon, 26 Jul 2004 09:15:14 EDT from Michael Chastain Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 04:41:00 -0000 Message-Id: <20040727041553.576481341B@grayscale.canids> X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00342.txt.bz2 Michael Chastain : > If you've used build != host in the past, that's valid. > My question is: how far in the past? Because it seems like > everything these days is gdb remote protocol. can't remember last time I did it, this stuff never stays in my mind long. but friend says they still do build!=host testing at TiVo. > If build != host, then the host does not have to run expect. > But the host does have to run some kind of network server > like telnet/ftp or rlogin/rcp (or kermit or tip or ...) yeah, I suspect whatever problems expect has could be fixed, any type of network loopback could be used instead of the pty code. it seems to be a nontrivial amount of work though. > It's a tradeoff. The situation right now is that there are 1-2 dozen > scripts which do not work in a build != host environment, and they've > been that way for several years. I can spend time fixing these and > actually running some build != host test runs. Or we can change the > policy so that build != host is not supported. or those specific scripts could just yield unsupported when build!=host. --