Re: [RFA/testsuite] attach.exp: Add small delay in busy loop...

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 04:26:07PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Joel Brobecker wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >The attach.exp sometimes fails on certain platforms (eg mips-irix),
> >and causes an attach process to be left behind. Since it is doing a busy
> >loop, this runaway process left behind consumes 99.9% of the CPU,
> >and considerably slows down the execution of the rest of the testsuite.
> >
> >I suggest the following change to add a small delay at each iteration
> >of the busy loop. I had to make some adjustments to attach.exp:
> >
> >  a. Line number 19 became line 32.
> >     Just like Elena recently upgraded a test to avoid hard-coded
> >     line number, we should probably clean this up, someday. This can
> >     be a separate patch, however.
> >
> >  b. The program was attached to while inside the busy loop, so the
> >     test was expecting the debugger to report that the inferior was
> >     inside function main() after the attach command was performed.
> >     This is no longer the case, since the inferior is most likely
> >     inside a system call, doing the delay. I felt that it was not
> >     a necessity to checke where the debugger thought the inferior
> >     was stopped, so removed that part of the expected output. What
> >     I can do is add an extra test that does a backtrace and verifies
> >     that it contains a frame for function main().
> >
> >2003-11-18  J. Brobecker  <brobecker@gnat.com>
> >
> >        * gdb.base/attach.c: Add small delay in busy loop.
> >        * gdb.base/attach.exp: Make some associated adjustments.
> >
> >OK to apply?
> 
> Seems to work on Linux.  I'd sure like to see that backtrace test,
> though, to confirm that we are able to build a meaningful machine
> state after we attach.

Seems reasonable to me.  Warning: this will be yet another place we
backtrace from syscalls, and sometimes we just can't do that.  We
already have a couple of configurations where GDB can't reasonably be
expected to backtrace out of nanosleep.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer