From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28961 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2011 01:12:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 28950 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Apr 2011 01:12:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_OC X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:11:58 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D6D72BB1A4; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:11:57 -0400 (EDT) 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 NFPZEjb5PPW9; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:11:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1AE12BB1A1; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 21:11:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 66DF2145615; Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:11:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:12:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: Pedro Alves , aristovski@qnx.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc v2][rft (procfs, nto-procfs)] Fix signal bypass heuristic with software single-step Message-ID: <20110427011154.GA27627@adacore.com> References: <201104041047.44630.pedro@codesourcery.com> <201104051922.p35JMeFA006141@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201104051922.p35JMeFA006141@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2011-04/txt/msg00492.txt.bz2 > Joel, I was wondering if you still have some procfs-based machines > (e.g. Solaris) where you could run a test? I finally found the time to test this patch on mips-irix, and the testsuite revealed no regression. I have a few FAIL that turned into PASS, but these are thread testcases, so it could be by pure accident. Sorry for taking so long for doing this... Results on mips-irix are not as bad as I thought they might be. I don't have a C++ compiler on this platform, so it accounts for some of the failures. But otherwise, here are the totals: # of expected passes 11461 # of unexpected failures 357 # of unexpected successes 3 # of expected failures 57 # of untested testcases 119 # of unresolved testcases 5 # of unsupported tests 56 -- Joel