From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5472 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2004 13:58:57 -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 5250 invoked from network); 9 Aug 2004 13:58:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Aug 2004 13:58:55 -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 i79Dwte3001318 for ; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:58:55 -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 i79Dwsa11645; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:58:54 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 222972B9D; Mon, 9 Aug 2004 09:58:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <41178316.7000906@gnu.org> Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 13:58:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040801 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz , mec.gnu@mindspring.com Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [testsuite] Kfail signals.exp failures References: <20040808231810.GA24826@nevyn.them.org> <200408090745.i797jnFc000594@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <20040809131105.GA27539@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040809131105.GA27539@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00307.txt.bz2 > On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 09:45:49AM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > >>> Date: Sun, 8 Aug 2004 19:18:10 -0400 >>> From: Daniel Jacobowitz >>> >>> 2004-08-08 Daniel Jacobowitz >>> >>> PR gdb/1738 >>> * gdb.base/signals.exp (signal_tests_1): KFAIL bug in continuing >>> from a breakpoint with a pending signal. >>> >>> Hmm, SPARC doesn't have hardware single-step. Solaris SPARC has >>> single-stepping implemented in the kernel, but all other OS'es don't >>> have that. > > > I wonder if this test passes anywhere? Thinking about it again, the > software singlestep breakpoint is inserted when !breakpoints_inserted, > so the same problem should apply. Yep. The existing test passes on s390 GNU/Linux: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-testers/2004-q3/msg00068.html and my local PPC NetBSD machine. Both have h/w single-step. See breakpoints/1702. You appear to have found a new bug. Given all the potential combinations of step / next / continue VS breakpoint at/in handler VS handle its self, we may want to split this out of signals.exp and into a new expanded test file. Either way, a new test is needed. BTW, does sigbpt.exp pass? It's testing a related stepi edge case. Michael, those KFAILs are not correct. Andrew