From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20196 invoked by alias); 24 Aug 2004 16:04:23 -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 20176 invoked from network); 24 Aug 2004 16:04:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO blount.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.226) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 24 Aug 2004 16:04:22 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by blount.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1BzdmR-0004bI-00; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:04:15 -0400 Received: from mindspring.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C6C84B102; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 12:04:36 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:04:00 -0000 From: Michael Chastain To: jjohnstn@redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA]: Fix for pending breakpoints in manually loaded/unloaded shlibs Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, eliz@gnu.org, drow@false.org Message-ID: <412B6713.nailIK6134TRF@mindspring.com> References: <41191D71.60204@redhat.com> <20040811171203.GA4152@nevyn.them.org> <411A7D97.50104@redhat.com> <20040818135621.GA26257@nevyn.them.org> <4123AC6E.8000300@redhat.com> <20040818193952.GA27639@nevyn.them.org> <4123B62C.6060703@redhat.com> <412A62A6.3010806@redhat.com> <412A6B08.nailD8G118X9H@mindspring.com> <412A713C.1020004@redhat.com> <412AA745.nailDJP21A7CE@mindspring.com> <412B640D.4010401@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <412B640D.4010401@redhat.com> User-Agent: nail 10.8 6/28/04 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00646.txt.bz2 Jeff Johnston wrote: > The test fails now because gdb is not issuing the message that is > currently in the test script. The message in the test script is a new > message which does not currently exist and never did in any gdb > release. Okay, that unconfuses me. > Thus, I was wondering if I still need to have checks for old > and new messages in the script. If gdb 6.2 didn't print a message, then you don't need to have it in the script. What I care about is comparing gdb 6.2 and gdb 6.2.91 with the test suite that's going to be in gdb 6.2.91. On the last spin I did with gdb 6.2 and the current version of unload.exp (from gdb HEAD 2004-08-18), I got this: (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/unload.exp: running program continue Continuing. y is 7 Program exited normally. (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/unload.exp: continuing to end of program run Starting program: /tmp/migbat-testgdb-8amaeH24/test/gdb.base/unload Warning: Cannot insert breakpoint 2. Error accessing memory address 0x400136cb: Input/output error. (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/unload.exp: rerun to shared library breakpoint Which is cool. The test script is doing its job, making gdb barf. That will be a genuine "before" FAIL in the tables, not a fake "before". Maybe someday, omeone can even mine this data source and add more "bugs fixed in this release" sections to NEWS.