From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18879 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2013 15:25:35 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 18870 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jul 2013 15:25:35 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:25:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6PFPRth021967 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:25:27 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-19.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.19]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6PFPNlT005989 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 25 Jul 2013 11:25:26 -0400 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 15:25:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patchv2 2/2] Fix CTRL-C for remote.c (PR remote/15297) Message-ID: <20130725152523.GA20909@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20130630181110.GB29548@host2.jankratochvil.net> <8738r2wtsy.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8738r2wtsy.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00618.txt.bz2 On Thu, 25 Jul 2013 17:19:57 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote: > I read through this patch and it made sense, at least as far as I could > understand it. It's a tricky area and without redoing the research you > did I think it is reasonably hard to critique. Thanks. > Jan> The testcase does not work perfectly for target-async + all-stop, > Jan> it is not being tested. I did not find it a commonly used mode and > Jan> it may be fixed in a different/additional patch. It works in > Jan> general but not in 100% cases. > > Can you characterize the failure modes? Or will I see it if I add a > target-async+non-stop case to your new .exp? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - this one is there: There are currently: async-nonstop sync-allstop There is missing (and causing FAILs if added): async-allstop > I have a series here to always enable target-async, which I plan to > submit soon. I'd like to understand this more so I can fix up my > series. You are right this "async-allstop" case has to be added. I was not sure what is the expected behavior/output in such case, maybe GDB behaves correctly. The patch got out of sync anyway, I will resubmit it. Thanks, Jan