From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 48428 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2015 14:31:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 48186 invoked by uid 89); 26 Oct 2015 14:31:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: ausc60pc101.us.dell.com Received: from ausc60pc101.us.dell.com (HELO ausc60pc101.us.dell.com) (143.166.85.206) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (CAMELLIA256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:31:12 +0000 X-LoopCount0: from 10.170.28.39 From: To: CC: Subject: Re: Unreliable test suites? Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:31:00 -0000 Message-ID: <2993BA18-D91F-4D35-AF5A-E07D529558DC@dell.com> References: <86CED23D-95E1-4A1F-B656-EDD2A2244FE7@dell.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg00101.txt.bz2 > On Oct 26, 2015, at 1:36 AM, Doug Evans wrote: >=20 > On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 12:58 PM, wrote: >> I'm doing some work on gdb and want to run the testsuites to confirm tha= t I didn't mess it up. >>=20 >> The problem is that a number of them seem to be quite unreliable. I've = seen test runs where gdb.btrace/step.exp and/or stepi.exp have a pile of fa= ilures, but then when I rerun either just those tests, or the whole suite, = they pass. >>=20 >> Since I haven't a clue how the reverse execution stuff works, I don't kn= ow if this is expected. It seems strange. I also don't know what to do ab= out it if it's not supposed to be like that. For now, I'm just running thin= gs a couple of times, and if they pass once, I call it good enough. >=20 > Those particular tests don't fail for me, even with check-parallel, > but then it could depend on the target. > OTOH several tests *are* flaky, especially under load. >=20 > What I normally do is for the failures, > run just those tests one at a time (to reduce load induced failures). > And do that in the before and after trees. > If they fail in the before tree too, then don't worry about it. Thanks. I've been doing this sort of thing as well, and that helps. Runni= ng just one test as a confirmation seems to be particularly effective. paul