From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19763 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 2004 16:28:34 -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 19741 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2004 16:28:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Sep 2004 16:28:32 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1C4ipb-0001z3-WE; Tue, 07 Sep 2004 12:28:32 -0400 Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 16:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] Gut signals.exp Message-ID: <20040907162831.GA7505@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <412B5C86.2090607@gnu.org> <413DC19E.2030209@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <413DC19E.2030209@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00109.txt.bz2 On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 10:11:42AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > The only interesting bit [well I think] is that I'm also removing > several xfails. The xfailed test (it should have been a kfail) is > checking that GDB remembers that it was single-stepping, so that when a > signal handler breakpoint is hit and then continued, GDB resumes the > earlier single-step task. Making this work would involve a stack of > outstanding commands and would require a very good UI design. > Consequently, I think the feature & test can be dropped until someone is > motivated to design / implement it. I'd like to have a record of this, since I've wanted it several times. Would you please file a PR, if there isn't one already? Beyond that I don't care if it's tested. Tests for unimplemented features don't do much good. > - # In running to func2, the 2rd alarm call will have been set > - # up, let it be delivered. > - > - # This doesn't work correctly on platforms with hardware single > - # step... > - > - sleep 2 > - > - setup_kfail "i*86-*-*" gdb/1738 > - setup_kfail "x86_64-*-*" gdb/1738 > - setup_kfail "rs6000-*-*" gdb/1738 > - setup_kfail "powerpc-*-*" gdb/1738 > - setup_kfail "sparc-*-*" gdb/1738 > - gdb_test "continue" "Breakpoint.*handler.*" \ > - "continue to handler for 3rd alarm call" > - > - setup_kfail "i*86-*-*" gdb/1738 > - setup_kfail "x86_64-*-*" gdb/1738 > - setup_kfail "rs6000-*-*" gdb/1738 > - setup_kfail "powerpc-*-*" gdb/1738 > - setup_kfail "sparc-*-*" gdb/1738 > - gdb_test "backtrace" \ > - "#0 handler.*#1.*signal handler called.*#2 func2.*#3.*main.*" \ > - "backtrace for 3rd alarm" Ignoring that I obviously got the analysis and the kfails wrong, did the Linux kernel patch you mentioned fix this test in the previous version of signals.exp? If not, is there another failing test that you are confident is the same problem? I'm guessing the former but I can't check myself. -- Daniel Jacobowitz