From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13178 invoked by alias); 4 Mar 2011 22:05:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 13166 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Mar 2011 22:05:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 04 Mar 2011 22:05:49 +0000 Received: (qmail 11297 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2011 22:05:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 4 Mar 2011 22:05:47 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: [patch] [gdbserver] Do not crash on file load without inferior Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2011 22:05:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-27-generic; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Marc Khouzam , "'gdb-patches@sourceware.org'" References: <20110224114001.GA24673@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <201103042132.52768.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20110304213728.GA16487@host1.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20110304213728.GA16487@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201103042205.51281.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: 2011-03/txt/msg00333.txt.bz2 On Friday 04 March 2011 21:37:28, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > That patch already IMO required a regression test. So far I never could do > any gdbserver regression testing as gdbserver generates multiple gigabytes of: > Remote side has terminated connection. GDBserver will reopen the connection. > Can't open socket: Too many open files. Odd, I don't see that, with FORCE_PARALLEL and -j8, even. > I wrote some patches for it but I haven't yet got to posting them, the second > one IIRC does not yet work. After making gdbserver regression testable > I would like to get back to the original gdbserver problem. Are you saying you didn't have a chance of thinking about my rationale, or that you don't agree with my rationale, or that you wanted to write a better test, or? -- Pedro Alves