From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 48842 invoked by alias); 7 May 2018 08:36:41 -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 48832 invoked by uid 89); 7 May 2018 08:36:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=Javaid, UD:15.14-300.fc27.armv7hl, UD:fc27.armv7hl, UD:armv7hl X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 May 2018 08:36:40 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E46B818F6F6; Mon, 7 May 2018 08:36:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (unknown [10.36.118.9]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A9AD72023227; Mon, 7 May 2018 08:36:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 07 May 2018 08:36:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Omair Javaid Cc: Pedro Alves , Yao Qi , GDB Patches Subject: Re: [commit] aarch64: PR 19806: watchpoints: false negatives + PR 20207 contiguous ones Message-ID: <20180507083635.GA41899@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <1e06eb53-60f4-0800-a4f6-458e02f840bd@redhat.com> <20180426201216.GA218540@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20180501230339.GA3136080@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20180501230606.GA3138797@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20180503091532.GA3460897@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20180503091750.GB3460897@host1.jankratochvil.net> <13afbf49-09c1-2bd3-4293-241a242a7a11@redhat.com> <20180504203037.GA4080912@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) X-SW-Source: 2018-05/txt/msg00166.txt.bz2 On Mon, 07 May 2018 10:02:57 +0200, Omair Javaid wrote: > On 5 May 2018 at 01:47, Pedro Alves wrote: > > On 05/04/2018 09:30 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > >> Checked in: > >> a3b60e4588606354b93508a0008a5ca04b68fad8 > > New watchpoint-unaligned.exp test introduced by this commit fails for > arm targets. (Tested with Raspberry Pi2 Tester) I have described that in the commit log: There remains one issue: kernel-4.15.14-300.fc27.armv7hl FAIL: gdb.base/watchpoint-unaligned.exp: continue FAIL: gdb.base/watchpoint-unaligned.exp: continue (gdb) continue Continuing. Unexpected error setting watchpoint: Invalid argument. (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/watchpoint-unaligned.exp: continue But that looks as a kernel bug to me. (1) It is not a regression by this patch. (2) It is unrelated to this patch. I do not have ARM32 machine for testing, I did find out the FAIL on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers arm03-packager00.cloud.fedoraproject.org arm03-packager01.cloud.fedoraproject.org but that does not have too recent kernel and I haven't found an ARM32 machine with newer kernel, both such allocations failed for me inside Red Hat: Fedora-28-20180427.n.0 armhfp https://beaker.engineering.redhat.com/recipes/5107255 Fedora-Rawhide-20180502.n.0 armhfp https://beaker.engineering.redhat.com/recipes/5106357 due to: Question The following error occurred while installing the boot loader. The system will not be bootable. Would you like to ignore this and continue with installation? boot loader install failed Please respond 'yes' or 'no': It is true I could file some tracker PR for such XFAIL but then it looks to me as it would get more easily forgotten while this existing ARM32 bug unrelated to this my aarch64 fix should be probably fixed soon. One should also bisect GDB if it isn't a regression. But TBH professionally AFAIK I am also not so much interested in ARM32. > I have not tested it for other targets but if this is AArch64 specific > kindly mark it an XFail for other targets. I have marked it as XFAIL for all targets where it makes sense and which I could test. Jan