This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 2/4] introduce parallel mode
- From: Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2013 14:22:28 +0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] introduce parallel mode
- References: <1374073124-23602-1-git-send-email-tromey at redhat dot com> <1374073124-23602-3-git-send-email-tromey at redhat dot com> <51E7E27E dot 5030800 at codesourcery dot com> <87txjsc7mw dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <51E86A71 dot 3000301 at codesourcery dot com> <878v0lfb62 dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com>
On 08/02/2013 03:44 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
I am not sure about emitting a FAIL. There won't be a corresponding
PASS. It would be more noticeable, which is a plus; but in the absence
of a conflict it isn't clearly a FAIL-worthy bug -- even after my series
we'll have a few of these.
Emitting a FAIL explicitly gives writer an alert, otherwise, reviewers
have to screen the test case manually, like what we do nowadays for
duplicated test results. The test submission criteria is "zero-fail" in
gdb.sum, and I afraid few people pays much attention on something
suspicious in gdb.log.
So for now I am just teeing the output to the log file:
set inotify_pid [exec inotifywait -r -m -e move,create,delete . \
--exclude $exclusion_re \
|& tee -a $outdir/$tool.log &]
This way it will show up in on the terminal but also in the log.
That is good to me too.
I'm open to discussion about your idea though. I'm really not sure.
I don't have a strong opinion on either of them. I am OK to move on as
what we are doing in these patches. We can switch to emitting-fail
later if we think it is really necessary.
--
Yao (éå)