Re: [rfa] Gut signals.exp

[Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>]

> On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 10:11:42AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>>> The only interesting bit [well I think] is that I'm also removing 
>>> several xfails.  The xfailed test (it should have been a kfail) is 
>>> checking that GDB remembers that it was single-stepping, so that when a 
>>> signal handler breakpoint is hit and then continued, GDB resumes the 
>>> earlier single-step task.  Making this work would involve a stack of 
>>> outstanding commands and would require a very good UI design. 
>>> Consequently, I think the feature & test can be dropped until someone is 
>>> motivated to design / implement it.
> 
> 
> I'd like to have a record of this, since I've wanted it several times.
> Would you please file a PR, if there isn't one already?  Beyond that I
> don't care if it's tested.  Tests for unimplemented features don't do
> much good.

I don't even know how to start describing such a feature.  I've 
cut/paste the above text.

[,,,]
> Ignoring that I obviously got the analysis and the kfails wrong, did
> the Linux kernel patch you mentioned fix this test in the previous
> version of signals.exp?

Both the above and my already committed sigstep.exp additions pass with 
the fixed kernel (and the very latest GDB).

> If not, is there another failing test that you
> are confident is the same problem?

Andrew