From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28342 invoked by alias); 7 Sep 2004 20:07:45 -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 28335 invoked from network); 7 Sep 2004 20:07:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 7 Sep 2004 20:07:44 -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 i87K7dS2014296 for ; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:07:39 -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 i87K7W312471; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:07:32 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27AF528D2; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 16:07:29 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <413E1500.7040706@gnu.org> Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 20:07:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040831 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] Gut signals.exp References: <412B5C86.2090607@gnu.org> <413DC19E.2030209@gnu.org> <20040907162831.GA7505@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040907162831.GA7505@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00111.txt.bz2 > 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