> * I think that another mass test is due. That should give me a fresh > stream of stuff to fix.
Agreed. If the reloc support is ready for testing, this will be our first mass test using any ET_REL files at all. Also, the archive now (when it finishes updating) has for the first time many binaries produced by gcc 4.4. That will probably be the oldest gcc version in which we try to get any DWARF anomalies fixed, so for producer diagnosis that part of the data will be our main focus in the future. We know at least that we'll see lots of aranges anomalies in the older binaries (if not still 4.4 ones). That guarantees that in the simple mass test, many thousands of cases will have output and nonzero status. The test script leaves its state around for each failure. I think I have enough disk space on the test box that it won't be a problem to have thousands of failures, and it shouldn't too bad for me to upload just the logs. But sorting them all out might be a pain. If you don't already, perhaps it is worthwhile to have a switch suppress the semantic checks we already know are common failures. aranges!=ranges is the only one I recall off hand, is it the only one? I'll leave the choices up to you, and then I'll leave the sorting through the logs all up to you too. ;-) Just say what set of switches to use for the test. > * Or go through the spec and re-tag attribute expectedness. Let's wait on this one. I have two reasons in mind. First, I think what we'll really want is a more sophisticated set of checks/tables than just individually required/expected/optional/unexpected. (We can discuss those details.) Second, this is off the critical path for writer/compression work and checking its correctness. This is very valuable stuff for testing and fixing the compiler et al, but not the highest priority for us. I suspect your elfutils time allocation this week will be taken up just with existing loose ends and testing fallout. If not, or to plan for next week, let's look to that critical path. I think perhaps dwarflint now covers everything for correctness of the writer per se (vs producer semantics issues). Are there any holes I've forgotten? If dwarflint is "complete" as a checker for the writer, then it's time to shift more dwarflint features/polish into background tasks and look at some of tasks in the writer itself. I will try to soon do some brain dumps about all the pieces whose design I've contemplated, so we can talk about what to work on next. Thanks, Roland _______________________________________________ elfutils-devel mailing list [email protected] https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/elfutils-devel
