From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 5RraAZh9YGlMGDQAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 08 Jan 2026 23:01:28 -0500 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=Vn+odRnB; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id EDDF91E0B6; Thu, 08 Jan 2026 23:01:27 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-25) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 Received: from vm01.sourceware.org (vm01.sourceware.org [38.145.34.32]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange x25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 230F71E048 for ; Thu, 08 Jan 2026 23:01:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from vm01.sourceware.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95D804BA2E1C for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 04:01:26 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 95D804BA2E1C Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=Vn+odRnB Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 950A64BA2E04 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 04:00:43 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 950A64BA2E04 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 950A64BA2E04 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1767931243; cv=none; b=RAO2WcTqJ3kcq2GBbq92hNXRqo+2WOX6H7Yt8qOJpuNCPM9BVCzDqVyZN9kQkcS+VlVsKsnuhUXH6XpgCgmX3E0o8YX/YfsKCVRz3AzhvN8NWOoIk2ymdGOd5ZHXBBsSUGGZNZKVLYfZOhwLEvArl8t4c0D/izuNxst1D7/N4Hs= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1767931243; c=relaxed/simple; bh=fGuywlwJntac99CigHEGABerUtUBY8ShVpZfyR5m4gw=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=vbhrDFuNgoub+0p9ZAp+3UgE5NcKI1033N0DTOavxegcGgo/UG7siS7euPErR5HYqCCsQltWp0gjCLcaH+WRcci2u9hknmCDa+HD2TIyfNwqBvd8u6fXX+64IyfjBe4NptTaPmqvh9FV0UtcPZWs2PprJdKq4KOg18lvmmbgo3U= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 950A64BA2E04 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1767931243; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=3Wamj31cUEttETVCUc7OxzCwnJHxjtYE0cZC/EKat6M=; b=Vn+odRnBux/cpQMPKwuuFMgCUsACZxEH/cZz6NERU5wWi+5tY3Nc80AIxR2iu/vQREVnGU cvnlSgOo6FkOtBjIT5LMzSGYOOdD8Tz3U3P22yClWjGOTkg0BGyWJTbq+wQAmxTTGmZ3gZ 7srYwGi4llEtErWME4dzs8JyBWe8vds= Received: from mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-225-bG2zHBmMPBmYouMqomkeUQ-1; Thu, 08 Jan 2026 23:00:39 -0500 X-MC-Unique: bG2zHBmMPBmYouMqomkeUQ-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: bG2zHBmMPBmYouMqomkeUQ_1767931238 Received: from mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.93]) (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 mx-prod-mc-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B1E8819560A5; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 04:00:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from f42-mesa-1 (unknown [10.22.80.42]) by mx-prod-int-06.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E3CB0180009E; Fri, 9 Jan 2026 04:00:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2026 21:00:35 -0700 From: Kevin Buettner To: Tom de Vries Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] [gdb/testsuite] Fix timeouts in gdb.base/tls-dlobj.exp Message-ID: <20260108210035.6134686f@f42-mesa-1> In-Reply-To: <20260107091942.2506484-1-tdevries@suse.de> References: <20260107091942.2506484-1-tdevries@suse.de> Organization: Red Hat MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.93 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: PhfQpUNhrltMACN4V2xAtM77ofcxXPT1r1i_bXQNMRQ_1767931238 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces~public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Hi Tom, I'll state at the outset that I don't have any firm objections to the things you've done, but there are some things I'd like to understand better first. On Wed, 7 Jan 2026 10:19:42 +0100 Tom de Vries wrote: > When running the testsuite on a busy system, occasionally I run into > timeouts in test-case gdb.base/tls-dlobj.exp (gdb build with -O0, as > usual). > > When building gdb with Address Sanitizer (and still with -O0), I always > run into timeouts, though it may differ where in the test-case. > > I can address this using with_timeout_factor, and the test-case finishes > after a while without timeouts: > ... > real 2m30.139s > user 2m32.834s > sys 0m1.777s > ... > > But the preferred way to deal with this is to cut up the long operation in > smaller observable steps, each with their own timeout, so I tried out > eliminating the use of continue in the test-case, and using next instead. This is the key thing that I don't understand. Why should using 'next' be faster than continuing to a breakpoint? > In order not to spent too much time stepping through for loops like this: > ... > for (i = 1; i <= 4; i++) > s0 (i, 10 + i); > ... > I rewrote those to a single line. If using 'next' is truly better, then I'm fine with that change. > With this new approach, I get instead: > ... > real 0m5.950s > user 0m8.239s > sys 0m1.318s Wow - that's a truly astounding difference. Kevin