From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3555 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2004 15:35:31 -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 3545 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2004 15:35:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Jul 2004 15:35:29 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1BhryQ-0007sq-BU; Tue, 06 Jul 2004 11:35:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 15:35:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Michael Elizabeth Chastain , ac131313@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] New test sigbpt.{c,exp} Message-ID: <20040706153509.GA11822@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Michael Elizabeth Chastain , ac131313@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20040630185321.C24534B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> <40EAC0CF.1060106@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40EAC0CF.1060106@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00042.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:10:07AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >mec> Can you make more of the test names more unique? > >ac> Oops, I thought I'd covered that. Try the attached. > > > >It works for me. > >All the test names are unique except for "rerun to main". > >Stil the same four FAILs but that's okay because they really are FAILs. > > > >I approve this patch. > > > >ac> Are there [get_kernel_info] and [get_software_singlestep] testsuite > >calls? > > > >I don't know of any. > > > >I'm a bit leery of "get_kernel_info", because we should be testing > >for features rather than version numbers (the whole autoconf philosophy). > >Although get_compiler_info has worked reasonably well for the job > >that it does. > > > >I'm more inclined to dump a bunch of KFAIL's into the gdb_test_multiple > >arms for the bad results, along with comments about which kernel versions > >have been observed to have which behavior. Then in 3-5 years it's not > >hard to sort out the obsolete crap. > > > >If KFAIL's are too hard then just the comments for starters. > > I both kfailed and and commented, committing the attached. I get: KFAIL: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi out of handler; stepi (executed fault insn) (PRMS: gdb/1702) KFAIL: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi out of handler; stepi bp before segv (executed fault insn) (PRMS: gdb/1702) FAIL: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi out of handler; stepi bp at segv FAIL: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi out of handler; stepi bp before and at segv 0x080483f2 in bowler () at /opt/src/gdb/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/sigbpt.c:38 38 return *(char *) (v1 + v2 + v3); 1: x/i $pc 0x80483f2 : mov $0x55c35d00,%esi (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi out of handler; stepi bp at segv That's not the instruction that should be there; there's a multi-byte instruction at . My suspicion is that we single-stepped with breakpoints inserted and no trap was triggered for the breakpint at 0x80483f2 for whatever kernel reason. Make sense? If so, shall I try to find a way to kfail this? -- Daniel Jacobowitz