Re: dejagnu version update?

On 10/27/2021 5:00 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 18:32:24 +0200 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: On Tue, 16 May 2017 at 21:08, Mike Stump wrote: On May 16, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: The change I care about in 1.5.3 So, we haven't talked much

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 10/27/2021 5:00 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 18:32:24 +0200 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: On Tue, 16 May 2017 at 21:08, Mike Stump wrote: On May 16, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: The change I care about in 1.5.3 So, we haven't talked much

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 18:32:24 +0200 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On Tue, 16 May 2017 at 21:08, Mike Stump wrote: > > > > On May 16, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > > The change I care about in 1.5.3 > > > > So, we haven't talked much about the version people want most.

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 18:32:24 +0200 Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On Tue, 16 May 2017 at 21:08, Mike Stump wrote: > > > > On May 16, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > > > > The change I care about in 1.5.3 > > > > So, we haven't talked much about the version people want most.

Re: dejagnu version update?

Hi, On Wed, 27 May 2020 at 03:58, Rob Savoye wrote: > > On 5/26/20 7:20 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > > I'll run some RISC-V remote GCC/GDB testing and compare results for > > DejaGnu 1.6/1.6.1 vs trunk. It will take several days though, as it takes > > many hours to go through these

Re: dejagnu version update? [CORRECTION: not a regression in DejaGnu; GDB testsuite bug]

[cc-ing Joel as the originator, and ] On Tue, 9 Jun 2020, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: > >> I ran a quick bisection and the culprit turned out to be: > >> > >> ba60272a5ac6f6a7012acca03f596a6ed003f044 is the first bad commit > >> commit ba60272a5ac6f6a7012acca03f596a6ed003f044 > >> Author: Jacob

Re: dejagnu version update? [CORRECTION: not a regression in DejaGnu; GDB testsuite bug]

Jacob Bachmeyer wrote: Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: [...] I ran a quick bisection and the culprit turned out to be: ba60272a5ac6f6a7012acca03f596a6ed003f044 is the first bad commit commit ba60272a5ac6f6a7012acca03f596a6ed003f044 Author: Jacob Bachmeyer Date: Mon May 25 08:40:46 2020 -0600

Re: dejagnu version update?

Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: On Tue, 26 May 2020, Rob Savoye wrote: I'll run some RISC-V remote GCC/GDB testing and compare results for DejaGnu 1.6/1.6.1 vs trunk. It will take several days though, as it takes many hours to go through these testsuite runs. That'd be great. I'd

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Tue, 26 May 2020, Rob Savoye wrote: > > I'll run some RISC-V remote GCC/GDB testing and compare results for > > DejaGnu 1.6/1.6.1 vs trunk. It will take several days though, as it takes > > many hours to go through these testsuite runs. > > That'd be great. I'd rather push out a stable

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 5/26/20 7:20 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > I'll run some RISC-V remote GCC/GDB testing and compare results for > DejaGnu 1.6/1.6.1 vs trunk. It will take several days though, as it takes > many hours to go through these testsuite runs. That'd be great. I'd rather push out a stable

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Tue, 26 May 2020, Rob Savoye wrote: > I processed the patch backlog for DejaGnu, and have gone through the > bug list. It'd be nice if somebody could try master with a more complex > environment, etc... if I'm going to push out a release. For cross > testing all I have is a PI and QEMU.

Re: dejagnu version update?

I processed the patch backlog for DejaGnu, and have gone through the bug list. It'd be nice if somebody could try master with a more complex environment, etc... if I'm going to push out a release. For cross testing all I have is a PI and QEMU. - rob -

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 5/17/20 1:43 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > patch service before. It doesn't appear linked to our mailing list either > and instead you need to go through the hoops of a web interface (and open > an account first) to submit a change. From what I remember, it was decided the GNU toolchain

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Sat, 16 May 2020, Rob Savoye wrote: > > Overall perhaps a patch management system might be good having to make > > chasing patches easier, such as patchwork, and we already use Git, so we > > As an old GNU project, we're required to use what the FSF prefers, > which is on savannah.

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Sat, May 16, 2020 at 9:02 PM Rob Savoye wrote: > > On 5/16/20 5:45 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > > Overall perhaps a patch management system might be good having to make > > chasing patches easier, such as patchwork, and we already use Git, so we > > As an old GNU project, we're required

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 5/16/20 5:45 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > Overall perhaps a patch management system might be good having to make > chasing patches easier, such as patchwork, and we already use Git, so we As an old GNU project, we're required to use what the FSF prefers, which is on savannah.

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 17/05/20 05:15, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > Siddhesh, would you care to tell us how much effort it would be to set up > fresh patchwork? The patch traffic is surely much lower with DejaGnu than > it is with glibc, and there would be no data to migrate (but we might want > to feed a couple

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Thu, 14 May 2020, Rob Savoye wrote: > Right now working through patches is probably more important. :-) > There's zero patches on the DejaGnu savannah site, so I'd ask anybody to > submit them so I don't have to dig them out of email archives. I have reposted the single patch I have had

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 5/15/20 6:22 PM, Mike Stump wrote: > Anyway, love to have software that can move code wholesale. Love to move the > testsuite into a new language. All it needs is funding. :-) What GDB needs is expect, not Tcl. Most of the GDB testsuite is just expect pattern matching from the shell.

Re: dejagnu version update?

On May 14, 2020, at 11:11 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: > >> "Rob" == Rob Savoye writes: > > Rob> Not that team, the folks I talked to thought I was crazy for wanting > Rob> to refactor it. :-) > > I don't think refactoring dejagnu is crazy, but I think it's pretty hard > to imagine rewriting

Re: dejagnu version update?

Rob Savoye wrote: On 5/14/20 10:08 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: Have you approached the Linux Foundation Core Infrastructure Initiative for funding for both DejaGNU maintenance (patch backlog) and refactoring DejaGNU in Python efforts? Not that team, the folks I talked to thought I was

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 5/14/20 5:34 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > And then current development appears ongoing, ferociously indeed, with the > last check in literally today (barring my time zone), as indicated here: > . It's obvious I haven't been paying attention, so

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Thu, 14 May 2020, Rob Savoye wrote: > Personally, I tried to find funding to refactor DejaGnu in Python, > since Tcl is unmaintained too, but nobody was interested. Thank you for your contribution to DejaGnu over the years and for your input on this occasion. However it does not appear

Re: dejagnu version update?

> "Rob" == Rob Savoye writes: Rob> Not that team, the folks I talked to thought I was crazy for wanting Rob> to refactor it. :-) I don't think refactoring dejagnu is crazy, but I think it's pretty hard to imagine rewriting the gdb test suite in Python. It's 260 KLOC. Tom

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 5/14/20 10:08 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: > Have you approached the Linux Foundation Core Infrastructure > Initiative for funding for both DejaGNU maintenance (patch backlog) > and refactoring DejaGNU in Python efforts? Not that team, the folks I talked to thought I was crazy for wanting to

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Thu, May 14, 2020 at 12:00 PM Rob Savoye wrote: > > On 5/14/20 8:08 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > > >> stops responding for whatever reason. I have come up with a solution > >> (that I'd be happy to upstream, except that DejaGNU maintenance seems to > >> have been dead for like a year now), which

Re: dejagnu version update?

Hi Rainer, > > Versions 1.6 and 1.6.1 seem ubiquitous and coincidentally earlier this > > very week I have been chasing a phenomenon with Expect's `wait' semantics > > causing a reliable hang in remote testing if `ssh' to the target board > > stops responding for whatever reason. I have come

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 5/14/20 8:08 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: >> stops responding for whatever reason. I have come up with a solution >> (that I'd be happy to upstream, except that DejaGNU maintenance seems to >> have been dead for like a year now), which I have also confirmed to be >> required with current DejaGNU

Re: dejagnu version update?

Hi Maciej, > On Wed, 13 May 2020, Rainer Orth wrote: > >> > I'm in favour of requiring 1.5.3 or later, so 1.6 would be OK for me. >> >> If we go beyond 1.5.x, we need to go all the way up to 1.6.2: 1.6 and >> 1.6.1 have an ugly bug that can miss timeouts, causing tests to hang >> indefinitely

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Thu, 14 May 2020 at 07:45, Christophe Lyon wrote: > > On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 19:44, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > > > > On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 18:19, Mike Stump via Gcc wrote: > > > > > > I've changed the subject to match the 2015, 2017 and 2018 email threads. > > > > > > On May 13, 2020,

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 19:44, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc wrote: > > On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 18:19, Mike Stump via Gcc wrote: > > > > I've changed the subject to match the 2015, 2017 and 2018 email threads. > > > > On May 13, 2020, at 3:26 AM, Thomas Schwinge > > wrote: > > > > > > Comparing

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Wed, 13 May 2020, Rainer Orth wrote: > > I'm in favour of requiring 1.5.3 or later, so 1.6 would be OK for me. > > If we go beyond 1.5.x, we need to go all the way up to 1.6.2: 1.6 and > 1.6.1 have an ugly bug that can miss timeouts, causing tests to hang > indefinitely until one manually

Re: dejagnu version update?

Jonathan Wakely via Gcc writes: >> I had previously approved the update to 1.5.3, but no one really wanted >> it as no one updated the requirement. Let's have the 1.6 discussion. >> I'm not only inclined to up to 1.6, but to actually edit it in this time. > > Would the tests actually refuse to

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 5/13/20 10:51 AM, Mike Stump wrote: > So, now that ubuntu 20.04 is out and RHEL 8 is out, and they both > contain 6, and SLES has 6 and since we've been sitting at 1.4.4 for > so long, anyone want to not update dejagnu to require 1.6? We do still find and fix bugs occasionally. :-) And

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Wed, 13 May 2020 at 18:19, Mike Stump via Gcc wrote: > > I've changed the subject to match the 2015, 2017 and 2018 email threads. > > On May 13, 2020, at 3:26 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > > > Comparing DejaGnu/GCC testsuite '*.sum' files between two systems ("old" > > vs. "new") that ought

dejagnu version update?

I've changed the subject to match the 2015, 2017 and 2018 email threads. On May 13, 2020, at 3:26 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Comparing DejaGnu/GCC testsuite '*.sum' files between two systems ("old" > vs. "new") that ought to return identical results, I found that they > didn't: > I have

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 01:17:49PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On 7 August 2018 18:34:30 CEST, Segher Boessenkool > wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 08:25:49AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > >> Since g++ already requires 1.5.3, it make no sense to bump to > >anything older that 1.5.3,

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 01:17:49PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On 7 August 2018 18:34:30 CEST, Segher Boessenkool > wrote: > >On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 08:25:49AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > >> Since g++ already requires 1.5.3, it make no sense to bump to > >anything older that 1.5.3,

Re: dejagnu version update?

Hi, On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > How come? > > If one wants to develop on a distro that is notoriously outdated then > you have to obtain the missing pieces yourself. It's not about developing on an "notoriously outdated" distro, but about _testing_ on it. There are

Re: dejagnu version update?

Hi, On Wed, 8 Aug 2018, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > How come? > > If one wants to develop on a distro that is notoriously outdated then > you have to obtain the missing pieces yourself. It's not about developing on an "notoriously outdated" distro, but about _testing_ on it. There are

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 08/08/18 12:17, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On 7 August 2018 18:34:30 CEST, Segher Boessenkool > wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 08:25:49AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: >>> Since g++ already requires 1.5.3, it make no sense to bump to >> anything older that 1.5.3, so let's bump to 1.5.3.

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 08/08/18 12:17, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On 7 August 2018 18:34:30 CEST, Segher Boessenkool > wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 08:25:49AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: >>> Since g++ already requires 1.5.3, it make no sense to bump to >> anything older that 1.5.3, so let's bump to 1.5.3.

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 7 August 2018 18:34:30 CEST, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 08:25:49AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: >> Since g++ already requires 1.5.3, it make no sense to bump to >anything older that 1.5.3, so let's bump to 1.5.3. Those packaging >systems and OSes that wanted to update by

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 7 August 2018 18:34:30 CEST, Segher Boessenkool wrote: >On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 08:25:49AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: >> Since g++ already requires 1.5.3, it make no sense to bump to >anything older that 1.5.3, so let's bump to 1.5.3. Those packaging >systems and OSes that wanted to update by

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 08:25:49AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > Since g++ already requires 1.5.3, it make no sense to bump to anything older > that 1.5.3, so let's bump to 1.5.3. Those packaging systems and OSes that > wanted to update by now, have had their chance to update. Those that punt >

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 08:25:49AM -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > Since g++ already requires 1.5.3, it make no sense to bump to anything older > that 1.5.3, so let's bump to 1.5.3. Those packaging systems and OSes that > wanted to update by now, have had their chance to update. Those that punt >

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Aug 4, 2018, at 9:32 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On Tue, 16 May 2017 at 21:08, Mike Stump wrote: >> >> On May 16, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> The change I care about in 1.5.3 >> >> So, we haven't talked much about the version people want most. If we >> update,

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Aug 4, 2018, at 9:32 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On Tue, 16 May 2017 at 21:08, Mike Stump wrote: >> >> On May 16, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> The change I care about in 1.5.3 >> >> So, we haven't talked much about the version people want most. If we >> update,

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 at 17:32, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > debian-stable (i think 9 ATM), Ubuntu LTS ship versions recent enough > to contain both fixes. Commercial distros seem to ship fixed versions, > too. The CentOS 7.4.1708 version on gcc112 doesn't seem to be fixed.

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Sat, 4 Aug 2018 at 17:32, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > debian-stable (i think 9 ATM), Ubuntu LTS ship versions recent enough > to contain both fixes. Commercial distros seem to ship fixed versions, > too. The CentOS 7.4.1708 version on gcc112 doesn't seem to be fixed.

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Tue, 16 May 2017 at 21:08, Mike Stump wrote: > > On May 16, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > The change I care about in 1.5.3 > > So, we haven't talked much about the version people want most. If we update, > might as well get something that more people care about. 1.5.3 is in

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Tue, 16 May 2017 at 21:08, Mike Stump wrote: > > On May 16, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > The change I care about in 1.5.3 > > So, we haven't talked much about the version people want most. If we update, > might as well get something that more people care about. 1.5.3 is in

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:48 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 25 August 2017 at 14:55, David Edelsohn wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Rainer Orth >> wrote: >>> Hi H.J., >>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:32 AM, David Edelsohn

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 25 August 2017 at 14:55, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Rainer Orth > wrote: >> Hi H.J., >> >>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:32 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:24 AM, H.J. Lu

Re: dejagnu version update?

Hi, On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 09:55:29AM -0400, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Rainer Orth > wrote: > > Hi H.J., > > > >> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:32 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: > >>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:24 AM, H.J.

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Rainer Orth wrote: > Hi H.J., > >> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:32 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:24 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:01 AM, David

Re: dejagnu version update?

Hi H.J., > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:32 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:24 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:01 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: FYI, DejaGNU 1.6.1 is not compatible with the GCC

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:43 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:32 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:24 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >>> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:01 AM, David Edelsohn wrote:

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:32 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:24 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:01 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: >>> FYI, DejaGNU 1.6.1 is not compatible with the GCC Testsuite. The GCC

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 9:24 AM, H.J. Lu wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:01 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: >> FYI, DejaGNU 1.6.1 is not compatible with the GCC Testsuite. The GCC >> Testsuite uses "unsetenv" in multiple instances and that feature has >>

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Fri, Aug 25, 2017 at 6:01 AM, David Edelsohn wrote: > FYI, DejaGNU 1.6.1 is not compatible with the GCC Testsuite. The GCC > Testsuite uses "unsetenv" in multiple instances and that feature has > been removed from DejaGNU. The testsuite is going to experience > DejaGNU

Re: dejagnu version update?

FYI, DejaGNU 1.6.1 is not compatible with the GCC Testsuite. The GCC Testsuite uses "unsetenv" in multiple instances and that feature has been removed from DejaGNU. The testsuite is going to experience DejaGNU errors when Fedora or OpenSUSE upgrades to a more recent DejaGNU in the 1.6 series. -

Re: dejagnu version update?

On May 16, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > The change I care about in 1.5.3 So, we haven't talked much about the version people want most. If we update, might as well get something that more people care about. 1.5.3 is in ubuntu LTS 16.04 and Fedora 24, so

Re: dejagnu version update?

On May 16, 2017, at 5:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > The change I care about in 1.5.3 So, we haven't talked much about the version people want most. If we update, might as well get something that more people care about. 1.5.3 is in ubuntu LTS 16.04 and Fedora 24, so

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 16.05.2017 05:35, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On 16 May 2017 at 14:16, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 16 May 2017 at 13:13, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >>> 1.5.0 wouldn't buy us anything as the "libdirs" handling is only in 1.5.2 >>> and later. >> >> Ah I missed

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 16.05.2017 05:35, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On 16 May 2017 at 14:16, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >> On 16 May 2017 at 13:13, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >>> 1.5.0 wouldn't buy us anything as the "libdirs" handling is only in 1.5.2 >>> and later. >> >> Ah I missed

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 16 May 2017 at 14:16, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 16 May 2017 at 13:13, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >> 1.5.0 wouldn't buy us anything as the "libdirs" handling is only in 1.5.2 >> and later. > > Ah I missed that in the earlier discussion. > > The change I care about

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 16 May 2017 at 14:16, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 16 May 2017 at 13:13, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >> 1.5.0 wouldn't buy us anything as the "libdirs" handling is only in 1.5.2 >> and later. > > Ah I missed that in the earlier discussion. > > The change I care about

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 16 May 2017 at 13:13, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > 1.5.0 wouldn't buy us anything as the "libdirs" handling is only in 1.5.2 and > later. Ah I missed that in the earlier discussion. The change I care about in 1.5.3 is

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 16 May 2017 at 13:13, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > 1.5.0 wouldn't buy us anything as the "libdirs" handling is only in 1.5.2 and > later. Ah I missed that in the earlier discussion. The change I care about in 1.5.3 is

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 16 May 2017 11:54:18 CEST, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >On 13 May 2017 at 11:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer >wrote: >>> I guess neither redhat >>> (https://access.redhat.com/downloads/content/dejagnu/ redirects

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 16 May 2017 11:54:18 CEST, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >On 13 May 2017 at 11:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer >wrote: >>> I guess neither redhat >>> (https://access.redhat.com/downloads/content/dejagnu/ redirects

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 13 May 2017 at 11:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >> I guess neither redhat >> (https://access.redhat.com/downloads/content/dejagnu/ redirects to a >> login page but there seem to be 1.5.1 packages) nor SuSE did update dejagnu

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 13 May 2017 at 11:38, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >> I guess neither redhat >> (https://access.redhat.com/downloads/content/dejagnu/ redirects to a >> login page but there seem to be 1.5.1 packages) nor SuSE did update dejagnu

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Mai 15 2017, Mike Stump wrote: > That said, a little surprising that SLE is lagging everyone else so > hard. DejaGnu doesn't exactly have frequent releases. Missing just one release can easily put you more than 5 years behind. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab,

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Mai 15 2017, Mike Stump wrote: > That said, a little surprising that SLE is lagging everyone else so > hard. DejaGnu doesn't exactly have frequent releases. Missing just one release can easily put you more than 5 years behind. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab,

Re: dejagnu version update?

On May 15, 2017, at 1:06 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > Both SLE-11 and SLE-12 use dejagnu 1.4.4, so does openSUSE Leap 42.[12]. > Tumbleweed uses 1.6 so new SLE will inherit that. But I still do all > of my testing on systems with just dejagnu 1.4.4. So dejagnu is

Re: dejagnu version update?

On May 15, 2017, at 1:06 AM, Richard Biener wrote: > > Both SLE-11 and SLE-12 use dejagnu 1.4.4, so does openSUSE Leap 42.[12]. > Tumbleweed uses 1.6 so new SLE will inherit that. But I still do all > of my testing on systems with just dejagnu 1.4.4. So dejagnu is

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 05/15/2017 04:54 PM, Martin Jambor wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 01:25:18PM -0400, Trevor Saunders wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:36:47AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: >>> > > ... > >>> I'd rather just move to 1.5 and get on with things. If some systems don't >>> have a new enough

Re: dejagnu version update?

Hi, On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 01:25:18PM -0400, Trevor Saunders wrote: > On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 10:36:47AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote: > > ... > > I'd rather just move to 1.5 and get on with things. If some systems don't > > have a new enough version, I'm comfortable telling developers on those > >

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:09 AM, NightStrike wrote: > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 05/13/2017 04:38 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: I guess

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 12:09 AM, NightStrike wrote: > On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Jeff Law wrote: >> On 05/13/2017 04:38 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: I guess

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 05/13/2017 04:38 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> >> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >>> >>> I guess neither redhat >>> (https://access.redhat.com/downloads/content/dejagnu/ redirects to a

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Jeff Law wrote: > On 05/13/2017 04:38 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> >> On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >>> >>> I guess neither redhat >>> (https://access.redhat.com/downloads/content/dejagnu/ redirects to a

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 05/13/2017 04:38 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: I guess neither redhat (https://access.redhat.com/downloads/content/dejagnu/ redirects to a login page but there seem to be 1.5.1 packages) nor SuSE did update dejagnu in the

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 05/13/2017 04:38 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: I guess neither redhat (https://access.redhat.com/downloads/content/dejagnu/ redirects to a login page but there seem to be 1.5.1 packages) nor SuSE did update dejagnu in the

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > I guess neither redhat > (https://access.redhat.com/downloads/content/dejagnu/ redirects to a > login page but there seem to be 1.5.1 packages) nor SuSE did update dejagnu > in the meantime. Fedora has dejagnu-1.6 in

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Sat, May 13, 2017 at 12:24:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > I guess neither redhat > (https://access.redhat.com/downloads/content/dejagnu/ redirects to a > login page but there seem to be 1.5.1 packages) nor SuSE did update dejagnu > in the meantime. Fedora has dejagnu-1.6 in

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:50:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On September 15, 2015 10:05:27 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote: > >On 09/15/2015 01:21 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > >> On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 10:39 -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > >>> On Sep 14, 2015, at 3:37 PM,

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 10:50:12PM +0200, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On September 15, 2015 10:05:27 PM GMT+02:00, Jeff Law wrote: > >On 09/15/2015 01:21 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > >> On Tue, 2015-09-15 at 10:39 -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > >>> On Sep 14, 2015, at 3:37 PM,

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 16/09/15 17:36, Jeff Law wrote: > On 09/16/2015 10:25 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >> >> >> On 16/09/15 17:14, Mike Stump wrote: >>> On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:29 AM, Andreas Schwab >>> wrote: Mike Stump writes: > The software presently

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 16/09/15 17:36, Jeff Law wrote: > On 09/16/2015 10:25 AM, Ramana Radhakrishnan wrote: >> >> >> On 16/09/15 17:14, Mike Stump wrote: >>> On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:29 AM, Andreas Schwab >>> wrote: Mike Stump writes: > The software presently

Re: dejagnu version update?

Mike Stump writes: > The software presently works with 1.4.4 and there aren’t any changes > that require anything newer. SLES 12 has 1.4.4. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7

Re: dejagnu version update?

Mike Stump writes: > The software presently works with 1.4.4 and there aren’t any changes > that require anything newer. SLES 12 has 1.4.4. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, sch...@suse.de GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 09/15/2015 09:23 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: > On September 15, 2015 7:39:39 PM GMT+02:00, Mike Stump > wrote: >> On Sep 14, 2015, at 3:37 PM, Jeff Law wrote: Maybe GCC-6 can bump the required dejagnu version to allow for getting rid

Re: dejagnu version update?

On September 16, 2015 3:01:47 PM GMT+02:00, Matthias Klose wrote: >On 09/15/2015 09:23 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer wrote: >> On September 15, 2015 7:39:39 PM GMT+02:00, Mike Stump > wrote: >>> On Sep 14, 2015, at 3:37 PM, Jeff Law wrote:

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:29 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Mike Stump writes: > >> The software presently works with 1.4.4 and there aren’t any changes >> that require anything newer. > > SLES 12 has 1.4.4. Would be nice to cover them as well, but their

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 16/09/15 17:14, Mike Stump wrote: > On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:29 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> Mike Stump writes: >> >>> The software presently works with 1.4.4 and there aren’t any changes >>> that require anything newer. >> >> SLES 12 has 1.4.4. > >

Re: dejagnu version update?

On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:29 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Mike Stump writes: > >> The software presently works with 1.4.4 and there aren’t any changes >> that require anything newer. > > SLES 12 has 1.4.4. Would be nice to cover them as well, but their

Re: dejagnu version update?

On 16/09/15 17:14, Mike Stump wrote: > On Sep 16, 2015, at 12:29 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> Mike Stump writes: >> >>> The software presently works with 1.4.4 and there aren’t any changes >>> that require anything newer. >> >> SLES 12 has 1.4.4. > >

  1   2   >