From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1889 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2008 12:48:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 1879 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jan 2008 12:48:29 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 12:48:10 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1495D98224; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:48:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF5C998216; Wed, 9 Jan 2008 12:48:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JCaLm-0007Ii-VL; Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:48:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 12:48:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Luis Machado Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Fix watch_thread_num testcase for ppc32 Message-ID: <20080109124806.GC27746@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Luis Machado , Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1199849652.22083.20.camel@gargoyle> <20080109041508.GA21281@adacore.com> <1199871500.22083.29.camel@gargoyle> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1199871500.22083.29.camel@gargoyle> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) 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: 2008-01/txt/msg00182.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 07:38:19AM -0200, Luis Machado wrote: > The test will create a max of five threads, that will keep updating a > shared variable. Five threads looping without a CPU delay really messes up interactive performance; that's why I reduced the thread count for schedlock.exp recently. > The reason why it times out is not really clear, i'm still > investigating. When you hit continue in 32-bit, GDB seems to stand there > doing something. It occurs from time to time. Sometimes it will stop due > to the watchpoint, sometimes it will "lock". When you hit ctrl-C, it's > clear that GDB is still executing the "nanosleep" function. That's what > pointed me to usleep(). Sounds to me like a bug in GDB, not a problem with the test. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery