From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22982 invoked by alias); 21 Dec 2007 16:12:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 22973 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Dec 2007 16:12:37 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:12:33 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B15D62A969D for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:12:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id V-w-rx-j4ww4 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:12:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A7CE2A9653 for ; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:12:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6EC4EE7ACA; Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:10:54 +0400 (RET) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 16:13:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Support exec tracing on GNU/Linux and HP-UX Message-ID: <20071221161054.GP6154@adacore.com> References: <20071019175920.GA548@caradoc.them.org> <20071022043831.GD764@adacore.com> <20071022114328.GA1421@caradoc.them.org> <20071022184702.GG764@adacore.com> <20071022185627.GH764@adacore.com> <20071022193024.GA16312@caradoc.them.org> <20071221153039.GO6154@adacore.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071221153039.GO6154@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2007-12/txt/msg00376.txt.bz2 > What do you think of the approach? I'll re-apply your patch on top > of mine, and see what we get now. The testsuite results on hpux seem to be a tad unstable (I get some shakiness in follow-fork/vfork and maint.exp). but I see the following differences too: | PASS | | foll-exec.exp: insert first exec catchpoint | | PASS | | foll-exec.exp: continue to first exec catchpoint | | FAIL | PASS | foll-exec.exp: sync up after possible failure 2 | | FAIL | PASS | foll-exec.exp: prepare to jump to execl call | | FAIL | PASS | foll-exec.exp: jump to execl call | | FAIL | PASS | foll-exec.exp: prepare to jump to execv call | | FAIL | PASS | foll-exec.exp: jump to execv call | On the left hand side, the results before the patch, and on the right the result after your patch. So, in terms of results, your patch looks good to me :). -- Joel