Re: [Linaro-TCWG-CI] 3 patches in gdb: 171 regressions on arm

On 6/9/26 12:52 AM, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:

Thiago Jung Bauermann thiago.bauermann@linaro.org writes:

...

The FAILs in gdb.threads/ are almost surely regressions not yet marked as such by our CI. I also see the gdb.base/gdb-sigterm.exp and gdb.mi/mi-break.exp FAILs on current trunk so they're also false positives.

Sorry, I mischecked mi-break.exp. It passes fully on current trunk. It's common for MI tests to be flaky though, so it could also be a case of a flaky test not yet flagged as such by our CI.

Yeah, based on what is changed by the test, there's nothing outside of gdb.reverse that would be affected by this test

the solib-precsave.exp failures are definitely concerning though, thanks for pointing those out!