Re: [testsuite] Kfail signals.exp failures

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 09:58:46AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 09:45:49AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >
> >>>   Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 19:18:10 -0400
> >>>   From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> >>>
> >>>   2004-08-08  Daniel Jacobowitz  <dan@debian.org>
> >>>
> >>>	   PR gdb/1738
> >>>	   * gdb.base/signals.exp (signal_tests_1): KFAIL bug in continuing
> >>>	   from a breakpoint with a pending signal.
> >>>
> >>>Hmm, SPARC doesn't have hardware single-step.  Solaris SPARC has
> >>>single-stepping implemented in the kernel, but all other OS'es don't
> >>>have that.
> >
> >
> >I wonder if this test passes anywhere?  Thinking about it again, the
> >software singlestep breakpoint is inserted when !breakpoints_inserted,
> >so the same problem should apply.
> 
> Yep.  The existing test passes on s390 GNU/Linux:
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-testers/2004-q3/msg00068.html
> and my local PPC NetBSD machine.  Both have h/w single-step.  See 
> breakpoints/1702.
> 
> You appear to have found a new bug.  Given all the potential 
> combinations of step / next / continue VS breakpoint at/in handler VS 
> handle its self, we may want to split this out of signals.exp and into a 
> new expanded test file.  Either way, a new test is needed.
> 
> BTW, does sigbpt.exp pass?  It's testing a related stepi edge case.
> 
> Michael, those KFAILs are not correct.

Yes, sigbpt.exp passes.

breakpoints/1702 is about the tendency of ia32 hardware to step two
instructions over int $0x80.  That does not affect this test case; see
the analysis in gdb/1738.

Please explain why the KFAILs are not correct, or why a new test is
needed.  This is a bug in GDB; I analyzed the bug, filed a bug report,
and marked the test which fails because of this bug as KFAILed to the
PR.  Judging from the historical use of XFAIL, this is the precise bug
that the test was written for.

My analysis does not explain why it passes on S/390, or on PPC.  If you
want to, then remove the PPC kfail.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz