From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26937 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 2004 23:26:25 -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 26930 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2004 23:26:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Sep 2004 23:26:24 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1C4pLz-0007Z7-9x; Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:26:23 -0400 Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 23:26:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] Gut signals.exp Message-ID: <20040907232622.GA29045@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <412B5C86.2090607@gnu.org> <413DC19E.2030209@gnu.org> <20040907162831.GA7505@nevyn.them.org> <413E1500.7040706@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <413E1500.7040706@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00115.txt.bz2 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