From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22972 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2008 23:28:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 22961 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Mar 2008 23:28:14 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:27:56 +0000 Received: (qmail 28715 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2008 23:27:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 18 Mar 2008 23:27:55 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: linux native async mode support Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:28:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: <200803140810.22883.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200803171605.24276.pedro@codesourcery.com> <18399.1872.669733.441391@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <18399.1872.669733.441391@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200803182327.59648.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2008-03/txt/msg00265.txt.bz2 A Tuesday 18 March 2008 00:05:36, Nick Roberts wrote: > > New patch attached. No regressions in async mode other than > > the same defines.exp regressions, and no regressions when async > > mode is disabled. --- tested on x86-64-unknown-linux-gnu. > > I've tested it (evidently on i686-linux-gnu) with > > set GDBFLAGS "-ex \"maint set linux-async on\"" > > in site.exp, ignoring commands.exp and just got a few extra exceptions: > > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi-var-child-f.exp: mi runto MAIN__ (timeout) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi-var-child-f.exp: create local variable array > > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-simplerun.exp: continue to end (1) > > FAIL: gdb.threads/pthreads.exp: check backtrace from main thread > Strange, I don't get any of these. Could you try to see what's different from a non-async run? The first failure may be gdb losing an event, although I haven't seen those in a while now. > Are you going to add any new tests? It seems you are! Actually, passing all the testsuite in async (with simulated syncronous mode) is already a good test coverage. I feel like I hit every possible problem already while writting this :-) You're right in that we're going to need tests for the new functionaly, ... > My original test file mi-async.exp (attached below) works with your patch > when GDBFLAGS is toggled as above. It would be be good to have a test for > -exec-interrupt too. Yep. ... but please let's not prevent the not having many tests from putting this in so more people can try it. -- Pedro Alves