From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2037 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2003 00:50:47 -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 2025 invoked from network); 23 Apr 2003 00:50:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO takamaka.act-europe.fr) (209.53.16.215) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Apr 2003 00:50:46 -0000 Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id AFAB4D34B8; Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:50:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 00:50:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/testsuite] test hand function call in commands list Message-ID: <20030423005039.GJ2402@gnat.com> References: <20030414154048.GC1151@gnat.com> <20030416142321.GA7612@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030416142321.GA7612@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00420.txt.bz2 > I can reproduce this. It's even simpler; we aren't executing the > commands list even if if there's no inferior function call in them. > This appears to be specific to commands on a breakpoint hit during an > inferior function call. > > Did this ever work? It looks like the call to error() when we stop in > call_function_by_hand drops us out in start_event_loop, but the call to > bpstat_do_actions is in command_handler (closer to the innermost end of > the call chain, and thus bypassed by the error()). > > Should we be calling bpstat_do_actions before that error()? I had a quick look: This ``feature'' is present since at least 5.1.1 (I tried on Linux with 5.1.1, 5.2.1 and 5.3 - could not try with 5.0 as it had a problem reading DWARF2_FORM_strp). I don't know how Klee got it to work. Here is what I suggest: This issue is orthogonal to what we are trying to test, so let's write a new test for it that does not rely on inferior function calls to hit the breakpoints. We can also discuss whether we consider this feature to be a bug or not. What do you think? -- Joel