From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26415 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2004 16:00:22 -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 26403 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2004 16:00:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 6 Jul 2004 16:00:21 -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 i66G0Ke3025112 for ; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 12:00:20 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i66G0K023540; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 12:00:20 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47AF92B9D; Tue, 6 Jul 2004 12:00:07 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40EACC87.3020908@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 16:00:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Michael Elizabeth Chastain Subject: Re: [rfa] New test sigbpt.{c,exp} References: <20040630185321.C24534B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> <40EAC0CF.1060106@gnu.org> <20040706153509.GA11822@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040706153509.GA11822@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-07/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 > On Tue, Jul 06, 2004 at 11:10:07AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>>> >mec> Can you make more of the test names more unique? >>>> >ac> Oops, I thought I'd covered that. Try the attached. >>>> > >>>> >It works for me. >>>> >All the test names are unique except for "rerun to main". >>>> >Stil the same four FAILs but that's okay because they really are FAILs. >>>> > >>>> >I approve this patch. >>>> > >>>> >ac> Are there [get_kernel_info] and [get_software_singlestep] testsuite >>>> >calls? >>>> > >>>> >I don't know of any. >>>> > >>>> >I'm a bit leery of "get_kernel_info", because we should be testing >>>> >for features rather than version numbers (the whole autoconf philosophy). >>>> >Although get_compiler_info has worked reasonably well for the job >>>> >that it does. >>>> > >>>> >I'm more inclined to dump a bunch of KFAIL's into the gdb_test_multiple >>>> >arms for the bad results, along with comments about which kernel versions >>>> >have been observed to have which behavior. Then in 3-5 years it's not >>>> >hard to sort out the obsolete crap. >>>> > >>>> >If KFAIL's are too hard then just the comments for starters. >> >>> >>> I both kfailed and and commented, committing the attached. > > > I get: > KFAIL: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi out of handler; stepi (executed fault insn) (PRMS: gdb/1702) > KFAIL: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi out of handler; stepi bp before segv (executed fault insn) (PRMS: gdb/1702) > FAIL: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi out of handler; stepi bp at segv > FAIL: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi out of handler; stepi bp before and at segv > > 0x080483f2 in bowler () at /opt/src/gdb/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/sigbpt.c:38 > 38 return *(char *) (v1 + v2 + v3); > 1: x/i $pc 0x80483f2 : mov $0x55c35d00,%esi > (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/sigbpt.exp: stepi out of handler; stepi bp at segv > > That's not the instruction that should be there; there's a multi-byte > instruction at . My suspicion is that we single-stepped > with breakpoints inserted and no trap was triggered for the breakpint > at 0x80483f2 for whatever kernel reason. Make sense? If so, shall I > try to find a way to kfail this? s/we/the kernel/ The kernel executed both the system call and the breakpoint instruction before returning control to GDB. This is a true loose loose situtation: - GDB thinks its single stepping - and that there's no bp at $pc - and hence that after the single step there won't be a reason for decr PC after break outch! Another pattern wouldn't hurt.