Re: [rfa] Gut signals.exp

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 04:07:28PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >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.
> 
> I don't even know how to start describing such a feature.  I've 
> cut/paste the above text.
> 
> [,,,]
> >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?
> 
> Both the above and my already committed sigstep.exp additions pass with 
> the fixed kernel (and the very latest GDB).

Thanks!

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz