Re: [patch] New thread test to exercise Daniel's Patch

[Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:59:30PM -0500, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> 
>>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:04:00PM -0500, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ok, I had the thread checks in the Continue test.  If I change it to the 
>>>>way above, now I get 3 "Process no longer exists "messages but the test 
>>>>completes. :(
>>>>
>>>>I'm really starting to hate these test macros.  What is the reasoning 
>>>>behind avoiding send_gdb / gdb_expect?
>>>
>>>
>>>They don't automatically handle things like internal errors,
>>>disconnects, et cetera.  Want to post your current version and I'll
>>>give it a try?
>>>
> 
> 
>>  -re "Program received signal SIGINT.*$gdb_prompt $"
>>    {
>>      pass "$message"
>>    }
> 
> 
> Nothing automatically sets $message.  The ERROR: you saw is DejaGNU's
> generic failure message for things like syntax errors in expect blocks;
> I sent a patch to the dejagnu list a month or so ago to print more
> helpful information.  Try the attached script instead.
> 

Thanks for restoring my sanity.  I got mixed up by the fact that the 
gdb_test_multiple macro uses $message inside itself based on the passed 
argument.  I thought the conditions I specify would be able to use the same 
variable.

It runs successfully for me on my RHEL3 system.

> Oddly, running a fixed manythreads.exp with an unpatched GDB, I get a
> SIGSEGV in pthread_join.  It shows up as a FAIL (yay).  The patched GDB
> shows up as nine PASSes (yay).  Re-running it a number of times, the
> SIGSEGV came and went intermittently.
> 
> Running the test with LinuxThreads an internal error (lp->status == 0
> assertion failed) came and went also.
> 
> I guess that makes it a good test.... now someone will have to _fix_
> those.
> 

Do I resubmit the patched test or has it been approved?

-- Jeff J.