From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23457 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2002 04:29:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 23450 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2002 04:29:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2002 04:29:33 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18J6Z5-0004U0-00; Tue, 03 Dec 2002 00:29:51 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18J4h0-0005QZ-00; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 23:29:54 -0500 Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 20:29:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] port simple gdb.threads/schedlock.c test fix to branch Message-ID: <20021203042954.GA20841@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200212030420.gB34KD920675@duracef.shout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200212030420.gB34KD920675@duracef.shout.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00050.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 10:20:13PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > I would like to port this fix from mainline to 5.3 branch: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-10/msg00454.html > > 2002-10-22 Daniel Jacobowitz > > * gdb.threads/schedlock.c (args): Make unsigned. > > Note that this is a test program fix, not a gdb fix. > > This fix improves the results from schedlock.exp, making them more > accurate and reproducible. Right now, I'm getting random failures > in schedlock.exp on the branch, and it takes work to determine that > the failures really are random and not correlated with different > versions of gcc and binutils. > > I tested this patch in my test bed with 66 different configurations > (on the 5.3 branch) and it works fine. And, of course, it's been > working in mainline just fine. > > I think this is obvious, but since I've been away for a while, > I just want to check first. > > Okay to apply to the 5.3 branch? This is OK for the branch. I think I meant to do it at the time and dropped the ball. I should also check that the lin-lwp fix for schedlock.exp made the branch... Caveat: Andrew had closed the branch for 5.2.91; I don't know if he's opened it up again yet or how strictly we're frozen. Andrew? > > Michael C > > === > > 2002-12-02 Michael Chastain > > From mainline: > 2002-10-22 Daniel Jacobowitz > * gdb.threads/schedlock.c (args): Make unsigned. > > Index: testsuite/gdb.threads/schedlock.c > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/schedlock.c,v > retrieving revision 1.1 > diff -u -p -r1.1 schedlock.c > --- testsuite/gdb.threads/schedlock.c 23 Aug 2002 20:32:02 -0000 1.1 > +++ testsuite/gdb.threads/schedlock.c 23 Oct 2002 03:21:13 -0000 > @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ void *thread_function(void *arg); /* Poi > > #define NUM 5 > > -int args[NUM+1]; > +unsigned int args[NUM+1]; > > int main() { > int res; > > > > -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer