From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16590 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2004 19:31:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 16583 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2004 19:31:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 3 Jun 2004 19:31:18 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i53JVHi5017117 for ; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:31:17 -0400 Received: from pobox.toronto.redhat.com (pobox.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.4]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i53JVH004270; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:31:17 -0400 Received: from touchme.toronto.redhat.com (IDENT:postfix@touchme.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.9]) by pobox.toronto.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i53JV8tn018630; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:31:17 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (toocool.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.72]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A650D80019B; Thu, 3 Jun 2004 15:31:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40BF7C7A.60701@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 19:31:00 -0000 From: Jeff Johnston User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Elizabeth Chastain Cc: msnyder@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa/testsuite/threads] ping: manythreads.exp References: <20040603182804.D59554B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> In-Reply-To: <20040603182804.D59554B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00059.txt.bz2 Michael Elizabeth Chastain wrote: > ms> So... this means it will unconditionally wait, right? > ms> Can I assume that "after 1000" means milliseconds, not seconds? > > Yes, and yes. The "milliseconds" part is in the TCL book so it's > okay to rely on it. > > ms> That's my only concern, that if it fails for some reason, it > ms> will block for a long time. If that's not the case, then the > ms> change is ok with me (if it's ok with Jeff). > > Hey Jeff -- is this okay with you? > Yes, please go ahead. > ms> Michael, I notice that the same idiom is used in pthreads.exp; > ms> do you think your change would also be appropriate there, and > ms> if so, would you mind making it? > > I think it would be good there too. Right now, the code says: > > sleep 1 > set description "Stopped with a ^C" > after 1000 [send_gdb "\003"] > gdb_expect { > ... > } > > so the test script is going into the gdb_expect and pausing there > until the 'after' block executes. There's no need to be running > the send_gdb "\003" in parallel with gdb_expect. So I'll make a > patch for this too. (Also it looks bizarre to use both 'sleep' > and 'after' ... gotta do a little research). > > Michael C >