From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7683 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2002 05:23:59 -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 7676 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2002 05:23:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2002 05:23:58 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18J7Pr-0004YT-00; Tue, 03 Dec 2002 01:24:23 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18J5Xm-0005ww-00; Tue, 03 Dec 2002 00:24:26 -0500 Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 21:23:00 -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: <20021203052426.GA22838@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200212030519.gB35JOt21685@duracef.shout.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200212030519.gB35JOt21685@duracef.shout.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00055.txt.bz2 On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:19:24PM -0600, Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > > 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... > > >From the black box point of view, gdb HEAD and gdb 5.3 branch are > behaving very differently with schedlock.exp. This is with all the > same compilers and binutils and yada. gdb HEAD gives me 2 FAILs > consistently, and gdb 5.3 branch gives me 8 FAILs most of the time > and 4 FAILs some of the time. > > Gory details below. > > My version is from 2002-11-25, a week ago, and you checked in one > fix to lin-lwp.c since then, to call linux_proc_xfer_memory. > Is that the fix that lin-lwp.c needs? No. It should be, um... 2002-10-31 Daniel Jacobowitz * lin-lwp.c (lin_lwp_resume): Remove resume_all test for !step. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer