[PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp

[PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp

[Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches]

Hi,

When running test-case gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp in conjunction with:
...
$ stress -c $(($(cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep -c ^processor) + 1))
...
I run into:
...
(gdb) PASS: gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp: \
  inf1_how=attach: inf2_how=attach: info inferiors
pid=14783, count=59^M
pid=14783, count=60^M
  ...
pid=14783, count=118^M
pid=14783, count=119^M
pid=14778, count=90^M
pid=14778, count=91^M
pid=14778, count=92^M
pid=14778, count=93^M
pid=14778, count=94^M
pid=14778, count=95^M
PASS: gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp: inf1_how=attach: inf2_how=attach: continue
Quit^M
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp: \
  inf1_how=attach: inf2_how=attach: stop with control-c (SIGINT)
...

It occurred to me that the "Continuing." we see otherwise is not shown and
that it's possible that the control-C that is send is caught by gdb when
printing this.

Fix this by waiting for the "Continuing." message before sending control-C.

Tested on x86_64-linux.

Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24929

Any comments?

Thanks,
- Tom

[gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp

---
 gdb/testsuite/gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp | 13 +++++++++++--
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp
index 20ec03d94b3..5b6cedbe509 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp
@@ -196,13 +196,22 @@ proc coretest {inf1_how inf2_how} {
     set count2 0
 
     set test "continue"
+    set counting 0
     gdb_test_multiple $test $test {
+	-re "Continuing\\." {
+	    set counting 1
+	    exp_continue
+	}
 	-i $infs_spawn_ids -re "pid=$pid1, count=" {
-	    incr count1
+	    if { $counting } {
+		incr count1
+	    }
 	    pass_or_exp_continue
 	}
 	-i $infs_spawn_ids -re "pid=$pid2, count=" {
-	    incr count2
+	    if { $counting } {
+		incr count2
+	    }
 	    pass_or_exp_continue
 	}
 	-i $gdb_spawn_id -re "received signal SIGTTOU.*$gdb_prompt " {

Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp

[Pedro Alves]

On 2021-09-28 6:57 p.m., Tom de Vries wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> When running test-case gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp in conjunction with:
> ...
> $ stress -c $(($(cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep -c ^processor) + 1))
> ...
> I run into:
> ...
> (gdb) PASS: gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp: \
>   inf1_how=attach: inf2_how=attach: info inferiors
> pid=14783, count=59^M
> pid=14783, count=60^M
>   ...
> pid=14783, count=118^M
> pid=14783, count=119^M
> pid=14778, count=90^M
> pid=14778, count=91^M
> pid=14778, count=92^M
> pid=14778, count=93^M
> pid=14778, count=94^M
> pid=14778, count=95^M
> PASS: gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp: inf1_how=attach: inf2_how=attach: continue
> Quit^M
> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp: \
>   inf1_how=attach: inf2_how=attach: stop with control-c (SIGINT)
> ...
> 
> It occurred to me that the "Continuing." we see otherwise is not shown and
> that it's possible that the control-C that is send is caught by gdb when
> printing this.
> 
> Fix this by waiting for the "Continuing." message before sending control-C.
> 
> Tested on x86_64-linux.
> 
> Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24929
> 
> Any comments?
> 

Hmm, think rang a bell.  I had posted a patch for this a few months back:

 https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-June/179503.html

The idea is the same, but my version is more complete, IMHO.

Sorry I didn't think of splitting that one out of the series at the time, this
could have been fixed all this time.  :-/

Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp

[Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches]

On 9/28/21 8:14 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 2021-09-28 6:57 p.m., Tom de Vries wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> When running test-case gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp in conjunction with:
>> ...
>> $ stress -c $(($(cat /proc/cpuinfo | grep -c ^processor) + 1))
>> ...
>> I run into:
>> ...
>> (gdb) PASS: gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp: \
>>   inf1_how=attach: inf2_how=attach: info inferiors
>> pid=14783, count=59^M
>> pid=14783, count=60^M
>>   ...
>> pid=14783, count=118^M
>> pid=14783, count=119^M
>> pid=14778, count=90^M
>> pid=14778, count=91^M
>> pid=14778, count=92^M
>> pid=14778, count=93^M
>> pid=14778, count=94^M
>> pid=14778, count=95^M
>> PASS: gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp: inf1_how=attach: inf2_how=attach: continue
>> Quit^M
>> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp: \
>>   inf1_how=attach: inf2_how=attach: stop with control-c (SIGINT)
>> ...
>>
>> It occurred to me that the "Continuing." we see otherwise is not shown and
>> that it's possible that the control-C that is send is caught by gdb when
>> printing this.
>>
>> Fix this by waiting for the "Continuing." message before sending control-C.
>>
>> Tested on x86_64-linux.
>>
>> Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24929
>>
>> Any comments?
>>
> 
> Hmm, think rang a bell.  I had posted a patch for this a few months back:
> 
>  https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-June/179503.html
> 
> The idea is the same, but my version is more complete, IMHO.
> 
> Sorry I didn't think of splitting that one out of the series at the time, this
> could have been fixed all this time.  :-/
> 

Np.  I applied the patch locally and it works for me.

Anything preventing this from going in now?

Thanks,
- Tom

Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp

[Pedro Alves]

On 2021-09-28 11:42 p.m., Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 9/28/21 8:14 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:

>> Hmm, think rang a bell.  I had posted a patch for this a few months back:
>>
>>  https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-June/179503.html
>>
>> The idea is the same, but my version is more complete, IMHO.
>>
>> Sorry I didn't think of splitting that one out of the series at the time, this
>> could have been fixed all this time.  :-/
>>
> 
> Np.  I applied the patch locally and it works for me.
> 
> Anything preventing this from going in now?

Not really.  Since you have it handy, can you push it?

Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.multi/multi-term-settings.exp

[Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches]

On 9/29/21 1:18 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 2021-09-28 11:42 p.m., Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 9/28/21 8:14 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> 
>>> Hmm, think rang a bell.  I had posted a patch for this a few months back:
>>>
>>>  https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-June/179503.html
>>>
>>> The idea is the same, but my version is more complete, IMHO.
>>>
>>> Sorry I didn't think of splitting that one out of the series at the time, this
>>> could have been fixed all this time.  :-/
>>>
>>
>> Np.  I applied the patch locally and it works for me.
>>
>> Anything preventing this from going in now?
> 
> Not really.  Since you have it handy, can you push it?
> 

Done.  Thanks for fixing this.

- Tom