From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29699 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2007 18:46:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 29689 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Mar 2007 18:46:29 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 18:46:22 +0000 Received: from dsl093-172-095.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.95] helo=caradoc.them.org) by nevyn.them.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HPNd3-0001eE-Az; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:46:17 -0500 Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HPNd3-0005y2-4m; Thu, 08 Mar 2007 13:46:17 -0500 Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 18:46:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] Increase match_max size for GDB testsuite? Message-ID: <20070308184617.GA22903@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200703081839.l28Id1ok029082@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200703081839.l28Id1ok029082@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-03/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 07:39:00PM +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > I'm no dejagnu/expect expert, but seems to me there is a buffer size > that is being set to 20000 in lib/gdb.exp, and if any response from > the inferior exceeds this size, it's not completly predictable what > happens. I think that's accurate. > Note that I've seen the same problem in the past with checkpoint.exp > on s390x-ibm-linux (when retrieving the list of 600 checkpoints), > so it doesn't appear to be a spu-only issue. > > By simply increasing the "match_max" argument in default_gdb_init, > those failures go away. I didn't notice any adverse effects either, > so I'd like to make that change -- however, if anybody has a better > solution to the problem, please let me know ... The checkpoint tests have a similar problem, but nowhere else should. Basically, there are two ways you can approach large tests: you can make the buffer bigger, and perform regex matching on an increasingly huge output, or you can match one line at a time and use exp_continue. One example of this is in auxv.exp. I'd mildly prefer that approach - the big buffer can be very slow, and it just means we'll be back to the problem again later if another target has even more registers. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery