Hi Luis, On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:37:58AM +0100, Luis Machado wrote: > > With the removal of the selftest.exp there are only two unittest.exp > > tests (one for gdb and one for gdbserver). This does seem very > > minimal. Could someone suggest stable, known good passing tests that > > should be added because when they do start failing it really is a > > regression that should be flagged? > > > > Note that the intention is to also allow a trybot that runs the same > > set of CI tests so it can be used as pre-commit check. > [...] > I always use gdb.base/break.exp as a good smoke test. If that one fails, then things > are really broken. > > I think gdb.base/break*.exp should make a good smoke test list. We just need to exclude > gdb.base/break-interp.exp, which is problematic on some targets. It never is just easy is it? :) You are right, I saw break-interp.exp fail... I tried to come up with a regexp but gave up given that it has to go throug python first and then we don't know whether the worker uses bash as /bin/sh so I just added them all (exclusing break-interp.exp) as a list. > If you also want to exercise gdbserver, then run with native-gdbserver and native-extended-gdbserver > boards. For example: > > make check-gdb TESTS="gdb.base/break*.exp" RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=native-gdbserver" -j$(nproc). OK, so I added two more steps, one with RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=native-gdbserver" and one with RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=native-extended-gdbserver" So now each CI run does make check-gdb three times. Frank, you might want to look at the bunsen upload code, I didn't know how to adapt it, so it only records the logs of the first make check-gdb step. Thanks, Mark