From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27755 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2013 14:27:27 -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 27673 invoked by uid 89); 29 Aug 2013 14:27:26 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:27:26 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com 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 r7TERNtD007491 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:27:23 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-30.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.30]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7TERJcc003172 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:27:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:27:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: [commit 7.6.1 only] [patch gdbserver 7.6.1 only] Fix fd leak regression Message-ID: <20130829142719.GA4036@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20130829111053.GA25662@host2.jankratochvil.net> <521F3B71.1010007@redhat.com> <20130829130359.GA31063@host2.jankratochvil.net> <521F5804.1080604@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <521F5804.1080604@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00870.txt.bz2 On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:17:40 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > Thanks, this looks good to me. Checked in: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2013-08/msg00161.html > > +set test "system fd behavior is known" > > +set status [remote_exec target "[standard_output_file $testfile]"] > > +if { [lindex $status 0] == 0 } { > > + pass $test > > +} else { > > + fail $test > > +} > > +remote_exec target "ls -l /proc/self/fd/" > > Before gdbserver's fix, do we get one extra fd from the dejagnu > leak, and another extra from gdbserver's leak? What if we made > $testfile count open fds, and then compare that between running > under gdb/gdbserver and just under remote_exec ? BTW not sure if it is clear but this gdb/testsuite/ part was sent accidentally, there is even written no real test and I have not checked in anything as I got stuck on the DejaGNU bug. I have sent a bugreport to and it got processed today although the mail has not yet appeared in the archive: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-dejagnu/ I hope DejaGNU gets fixed soon so the testcase can be later written as UNSUPPORTED (UNTESTED?) with buggy DejaGNU. Thanks, Jan