From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29183 invoked by alias); 2 May 2011 19:24:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 29170 invoked by uid 22791); 2 May 2011 19:24:16 -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; Mon, 02 May 2011 19:24:01 +0000 Received: (qmail 23642 invoked from network); 2 May 2011 19:24:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 2 May 2011 19:24:01 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb.base/pr10179.exp: fix racy tests (PR testsuite/12649) Date: Mon, 02 May 2011 19:24:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-28-generic; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Marek Polacek References: <4DBEE73B.3040202@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4DBEE73B.3040202@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201105022024.01156.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: 2011-05/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2 On Monday 02 May 2011 18:17:47, Marek Polacek wrote: > This one is quite trivial. Probably. But, it most probably only became trivial/obvious to you after looking at the gdb.log around the FAIL, and noticing, "ahh, the race is because FOO, and BAR". If you don't explain those FOOs and BARs on your patch submission, whoever reviews the patch needs to do about the same analysis work you've done. Please, can you try again, with some explanation of _why_ is it needed to ... > It was needed to write the whole > question instead of using the `.*' at the end. I have also > added the message input. ... do these? For instance, break.exp doesn't appear to need to match the whole question. Not sure the original PR 10179 had something to do with deleting breakpoints, otherwise, there's a delete_breakpoints procedure tests can use to do this. I'm not objecting or approving in any way, and it's really probably trivial. Just trying to point out that if you make it easier to okay your patches, you'll get okay's much quicker. :-) > Ok? > > 2011-05-02 Marek Polacek > > * gdb.base/pr10179.exp: Fix racy tests by completing > the question properly. Also provide the message input. > > > Index: gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/pr10179.exp > =================================================================== > RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/pr10179.exp,v > retrieving revision 1.2 > diff -u -r1.2 pr10179.exp > --- gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/pr10179.exp 1 Jan 2011 15:33:42 -0000 1.2 > +++ gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/pr10179.exp 2 May 2011 17:09:34 -0000 > @@ -29,10 +29,10 @@ > > gdb_test "rbreak foo.*" "Breakpoint \[0-9\]+\[^\\n\]*\\nint foo\[12\]\[^\\n\]*\\nBreakpoint \[0-9\]+\[^\\n\]*\\nint foo\[12\].*" > > -gdb_test "delete breakpoints" ".*" "" "Delete all breakpoints.*" "y" > +gdb_test "delete breakpoints" "" "delete breakpoints" "Delete all breakpoints\\? \\(y or n\\) " "y" > > gdb_test "rbreak pr10179-a.c:foo.*" "Breakpoint \[0-9\]+\[^\\n\]*\\nint foo.*" > > -gdb_test "delete breakpoints" ".*" "" "Delete all breakpoints.*" "y" > +gdb_test "delete breakpoints" "" "delete breakpoints" "Delete all breakpoints\\? \\(y or n\\) " "y" > > gdb_test "rbreak pr10179-a.c : .*" "Breakpoint \[0-9\]+\[^\\n\]*\\nint bar1\[^\\n\]*\\nBreakpoint \[0-9\]+\[^\\n\]*\\nint foo1\[^\\n\]*\\nBreakpoint \[0-9\]+\[^\\n\]*\\nint main\[^\\n\]*.*" > -- Pedro Alves