From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id HlxkNzvnTGGFIQAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 16:44:43 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id DADB01EE25; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 16:44:43 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 39D031EE14 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 16:44:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBEF73857C63 for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:44:42 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org BBEF73857C63 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1632429882; bh=h7WBcA70OF9zavBiSfpVk5nOPG/KRXeO2I8sr8ivULw=; h=Date:To:Subject:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post: List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:From; b=i2ETTgW3d3BJnM5uErxo7MNK0rTpKD56oVaUxdHgBzbX1dForyN8D6Q5STfsj7asY nmyKiDr8WYrRxlt2Q16g1Ijt6HIGPJp5SMzdLQXmYGKFzEd9btDBUmOvm2EtkMUYzV BfAntIAzi2qKYILYAAoL4sSiDoSC1CQNMMk/+qJc= Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 13408385843F for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:43:01 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 13408385843F Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 31831202EC for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:43:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 143CE13EAA for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:43:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id jn7AA9TmTGHbGgAAMHmgww (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:43:00 +0000 Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2021 22:42:58 +0200 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: [committed][gdb/testsuite] Handle failing probe detection in gdb.base/break-probes.exp Message-ID: <20210923204257.GA31892@delia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Tom de Vries Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" Hi, When running test-case gdb.base/break-probes.exp on ubuntu 18.04.5, we have: ... (gdb) bt^M #0 0x00007ffff7dd6e12 in ?? () from /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2^M #1 0x00007ffff7dedf50 in ?? () from /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2^M #2 0x00007ffff7dd5128 in ?? () from /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2^M #3 0x00007ffff7dd4098 in ?? () from /lib64/ld-linux-x86-64.so.2^M #4 0x0000000000000001 in ?? ()^M #5 0x00007fffffffdaac in ?? ()^M #6 0x0000000000000000 in ?? ()^M (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/break-probes.exp: ensure using probes ... The test-case intends to emit an UNTESTED in this case, but fails to do so because it tries to do it in a regexp clause in a gdb_test_multiple, which doesn't trigger. Instead, a default clause triggers which produces the FAIL. Also the use of UNTESTED is not appropriate, and we should use UNSUPPORTED instead. Fix this by silencing the FAIL, and emitting an UNSUPPORTED after the gdb_test_multiple: ... if { ! $using_probes } { + unsupported "probes not present on this system" return -1 } ... Tested on x86_64-linux. Committed to trunk. Thanks, - Tom [gdb/testsuite] Handle failing probe detection in gdb.base/break-probes.exp --- gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break-probes.exp | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break-probes.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break-probes.exp index e11591798df..ac10ac5a3b1 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break-probes.exp +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break-probes.exp @@ -52,15 +52,17 @@ set test "ensure using probes" set using_probes 0 gdb_test_multiple "bt" $test { -re "#0 +\[^\r\n\]*\\m(__GI_)?$normal_bp\\M.*$gdb_prompt $" { - untested "probes not present on this system" } -re "#0 +\[^\r\n\]*\\m(__GI_)?$probes_bp\\M.*$gdb_prompt $" { pass $test set using_probes 1 } + -re -wrap "" { + } } if { ! $using_probes } { + unsupported "probes not present on this system" return -1 }