Re: [rfa/testsuite] Make pthreads test more robust

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 11:12:31AM -0400, Fernando Nasser wrote:
> (please see below)
> 
> 
> Michael Snyder wrote:
> > The patch looks sane.  I'd like Fernando's blessing, but I'm inclined
> > to suggest checking it in and just watching out to see if it breaks
> > on any other platform.
> > 
> 
> I thought I had already responded to that, but I can't find the
> answer...
> 
> I agree with Michael -- lets try.  There is definitively a race
> condition
> in there.  If GDB does not say continue in 1 sec. we send it a Cntl-C
> and
> I am not so sure what the output will look like if we send the Cntl-C
> before
> GDB says "Continuing".
> 
> With your change we will be sure that the program is running before
> sending
> the interrupt request.  I guess it is the right thing to do.

I agree; patch committed.  If it breaks again, we can try harder :)

> P.S.: The "after" command schedules something to be done after a certain
> time.
> In this case, after a second (1000 milliseconds), a "\003" will be sent
> to GDB.
> So, we make it run and then interrupt it.
> 
> P.S.2: I wonder if there isn't a second race condition between the 1 sec
> to
> interrupt and the timeout of gdb_expect...

That might be it.  My failing tests looked like the interrupt was being
sent too soon, though, rather than not soon enough.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer