From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9546 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2004 13:15:51 -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 9536 invoked from network); 26 Jul 2004 13:15:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tisch.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.157) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 26 Jul 2004 13:15:50 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1Bp5KW-0000mA-00; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 09:15:48 -0400 Received: from mindspring.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 873384B102; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 09:15:17 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 18:07:00 -0000 From: Michael Chastain To: felix.1@canids.net Subject: Re: [proposal/testsuite] require build == host Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <410503E2.nailI8411PP3Y@mindspring.com> References: <20040725000344.F322F4B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> <20040725011817.A393A1317A@grayscale.canids> <20040725015139.GA14898@nevyn.them.org> <20040725074042.2F25A131B5@grayscale.canids> In-Reply-To: <20040725074042.2F25A131B5@grayscale.canids> User-Agent: nail 10.8 6/28/04 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00324.txt.bz2 Felix Lee wrote: lee> I remember running build!=host tests in some situations, but I lee> don't remember enough detail to demonstrate that it was really lee> necessary. I won't say "show that there's no other way to get the same effect". Because when one is trying to put a testbed together from several components, it's much easier when more of the components are more flexible. 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. lee> the issue isn't memory footprint, it's stuff like OS environment. lee> one thing that comes to mind: expect won't work if you don't have lee> ptys, but gdb works fine without ptys. also, BeOS apparently has lee> a weird select() call that's hard to work with. 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 ...) 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. Hmmm, I just checked Dan Kegel's crosstool FAQ, and he wrote a section on build != host testing for gcc, last revised 2004-01-04. This argues against removing build != host from gdb. Michael C