On 11/27, Veaceslav Falico wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 01:17:15PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote: > > > > That's certainly good to hear. If you are pretty confident about that, > > then I am quite happy to consider nonregression on all of ptrace-tests the > > sole gating test for kernel changes. We just don't want to wind up having > > other upstream reviewers notice a regression using gdb that we didn't > > notice before we submitted a kernel change. > > > > I've just done 'make check' twice on unpatched kernel, and found that the > results are not stable: > > --- gdb.sum 2009-11-27 09:54:14.000000000 +0100 > +++ gdb.sum2 2009-11-27 10:51:42.000000000 +0100 > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ > -Test Run By root on Thu Nov 26 18:52:09 2009 > +Test Run By root on Fri Nov 27 09:54:33 2009 > Native configuration is i686-pc-linux-gnu > > === gdb tests === > @@ -3537,12 +3537,12 @@ PASS: gdb.base/foll-fork.exp: unpatch ch > PASS: gdb.base/foll-fork.exp: unpatch child, catch fork > PASS: gdb.base/foll-fork.exp: unpatch child, breakpoint at exit call > PASS: gdb.base/foll-fork.exp: unpatch child, set follow child > -FAIL: gdb.base/foll-fork.exp: unpatch child, unpatched parent breakpoints > from child (timeout) > +PASS: gdb.base/foll-fork.exp: unpatch child, unpatched parent breakpoints > from child > PASS: gdb.base/foll-fork.exp: explicit parent follow, set tcatch fork > PASS: gdb.base/foll-fork.exp: explicit parent follow, tcatch fork > PASS: gdb.base/foll-fork.exp: set follow parent > PASS: gdb.base/foll-fork.exp: set follow parent, tbreak > -PASS: gdb.base/foll-fork.exp: set follow parent, hit tbreak > +FAIL: gdb.base/foll-fork.exp: (timeout) set follow parent, hit tbreak > PASS: gdb.base/foll-fork.exp: set follow parent, cleanup > Running ./gdb.base/foll-vfork.exp ... > PASS: gdb.base/foll-vfork.exp: set verbose > @@ -12499,7 +12499,7 @@ PASS: gdb.mi/mi-nsmoribund.exp: thread s > PASS: gdb.mi/mi-nsmoribund.exp: resume all, thread specific breakpoint > PASS: gdb.mi/mi-nsmoribund.exp: hit thread specific breakpoint > PASS: gdb.mi/mi-nsmoribund.exp: thread state: all running except the > breakpoint thread > -PASS: gdb.mi/mi-nsmoribund.exp: resume all, program exited normally > +FAIL: gdb.mi/mi-nsmoribund.exp: unexpected stop > Running ./gdb.mi/mi-nsthrexec.exp ... > PASS: gdb.mi/mi-nsthrexec.exp: successfully compiled posix threads test case > PASS: gdb.mi/mi-nsthrexec.exp: breakpoint at main > @@ -14507,7 +14507,7 @@ PASS: gdb.threads/watchthreads2.exp: bre > PASS: gdb.threads/watchthreads2.exp: all threads started > PASS: gdb.threads/watchthreads2.exp: watch x > PASS: gdb.threads/watchthreads2.exp: set var test_ready = 1 > -KFAIL: gdb.threads/watchthreads2.exp: gdb can drop watchpoints in > multithreaded app (PRMS: gdb/10116) > +PASS: gdb.threads/watchthreads2.exp: all threads incremented x > Running ./gdb.threads/watchthreads.exp ... > PASS: gdb.threads/watchthreads.exp: successfully compiled posix threads test > case > PASS: gdb.threads/watchthreads.exp: watch args[0] > @@ -14672,7 +14672,7 @@ UNSUPPORTED: gdb.xml/tdesc-xinclude.exp: > === gdb Summary === > > # of expected passes 13854 > -# of unexpected failures 75 > +# of unexpected failures 76 > # of expected failures 43 > # of untested testcases 7 > # of unsupported tests 59
Nice, thanks. So. I am going to conclude that, more or less, utrace-ptrace "passes" these tests. Jan, if you see something particular which needs more attention or should be fixed, please let me know. I'll try to investigate then. Oleg.
