* [RFA] Run follow-fork tests on Linux
@ 2005-11-26 0:05 Michael Snyder
2005-11-26 3:58 ` Andreas Schwab
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Michael Snyder @ 2005-11-26 0:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: GDB Patches, Daniel Jacobowitz
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 173 bytes --]
This allows the tests "foll-fork" and "foll-vfork" to run on Linux,
where they mostly pass. A little more verbose output from linux-nat.c
will fix the remaining failures.
[-- Attachment #2: testfork --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1676 bytes --]
2005-11-25 Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
* gdb.base/foll-fork.exp: Run if istarget linux.
Add PASS cases for linux.
* gdb.base/foll-vfork.exp: Run if istarget linux.
Index: gdb.base/foll-vfork.exp
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/foll-vfork.exp,v
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -p -r1.3 foll-vfork.exp
*** gdb.base/foll-vfork.exp 11 Dec 2002 02:04:45 -0000 1.3
--- gdb.base/foll-vfork.exp 25 Nov 2005 22:30:44 -0000
*************** if { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/
*** 55,61 ****
# Until "set follow-fork-mode" and "catch vfork" are implemented on
# other targets...
#
! if ![istarget "hppa*-hp-hpux*"] then {
continue
}
--- 55,61 ----
# Until "set follow-fork-mode" and "catch vfork" are implemented on
# other targets...
#
! if {![istarget "hppa*-hp-hpux*"] && ![istarget "*-pc-linux*"]} then {
continue
}
*************** proc vfork_parent_follow_to_bp {} {
*** 109,115 ****
}
send_gdb "continue\n"
gdb_expect {
! -re ".*Detaching after fork from process.*Breakpoint.*18.*$gdb_prompt "\
{pass "vfork parent follow, to bp"}
-re "$gdb_prompt $" {fail "vfork parent follow, to bp"}
timeout {fail "(timeout) vfork parent follow, to bp" }
--- 109,115 ----
}
send_gdb "continue\n"
gdb_expect {
! -re ".*Detaching after fork from.*Breakpoint.*18.*$gdb_prompt "\
{pass "vfork parent follow, to bp"}
-re "$gdb_prompt $" {fail "vfork parent follow, to bp"}
timeout {fail "(timeout) vfork parent follow, to bp" }
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [RFA] Run follow-fork tests on Linux
2005-11-26 0:05 [RFA] Run follow-fork tests on Linux Michael Snyder
@ 2005-11-26 3:58 ` Andreas Schwab
2005-11-28 8:26 ` Michael Snyder
2005-11-26 4:01 ` Mark Kettenis
2005-11-26 4:03 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Schwab @ 2005-11-26 3:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Snyder; +Cc: GDB Patches, Daniel Jacobowitz
Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> writes:
> --- 55,61 ----
> # Until "set follow-fork-mode" and "catch vfork" are implemented on
> # other targets...
> #
> ! if {![istarget "hppa*-hp-hpux*"] && ![istarget "*-pc-linux*"]} then {
Why only *-pc-linux*?
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, MaxfeldstraÃe 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756 01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [RFA] Run follow-fork tests on Linux
2005-11-26 3:58 ` Andreas Schwab
@ 2005-11-28 8:26 ` Michael Snyder
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Michael Snyder @ 2005-11-28 8:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andreas Schwab; +Cc: GDB Patches, Daniel Jacobowitz
Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com> writes:
>
>
>>--- 55,61 ----
>> # Until "set follow-fork-mode" and "catch vfork" are implemented on
>> # other targets...
>> #
>>! if {![istarget "hppa*-hp-hpux*"] && ![istarget "*-pc-linux*"]} then {
>
>
> Why only *-pc-linux*?
I meant it to be *-*-linux. The only other target I know of
that can do follow-fork is openbsd, and I don't have one handy
to test it on.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFA] Run follow-fork tests on Linux
2005-11-26 0:05 [RFA] Run follow-fork tests on Linux Michael Snyder
2005-11-26 3:58 ` Andreas Schwab
@ 2005-11-26 4:01 ` Mark Kettenis
2005-11-28 13:01 ` Michael Snyder
2005-11-26 4:03 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Mark Kettenis @ 2005-11-26 4:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: msnyder; +Cc: gdb-patches, drow
> Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:33:48 -0800
> From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
>
> This allows the tests "foll-fork" and "foll-vfork" to run on Linux,
> where they mostly pass. A little more verbose output from linux-nat.c
> will fix the remaining failures.
I think Dan J. and I basically agreed that actually the verbose output
seen on HP-UX is undesirable. So we should probably fix the testsuite
instead. I think that makes the second chunck of the patch
unecessary. Oh, and I really think you should check for *-*-linux*
instead of *-pc-linux*.
That said I'd like to see these tests enabled on *-*-openbsd3.9 and up
too. Feel free to add those. If you don't I'll consider it to be an
obvious patch once you've committed the Linux stuff.
Mark
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFA] Run follow-fork tests on Linux
2005-11-26 4:01 ` Mark Kettenis
@ 2005-11-28 13:01 ` Michael Snyder
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Michael Snyder @ 2005-11-28 13:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mark Kettenis; +Cc: gdb-patches, drow
Mark Kettenis wrote:
>>Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:33:48 -0800
>>From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
>>
>>This allows the tests "foll-fork" and "foll-vfork" to run on Linux,
>>where they mostly pass. A little more verbose output from linux-nat.c
>>will fix the remaining failures.
>
>
> I think Dan J. and I basically agreed that actually the verbose output
> seen on HP-UX is undesirable. So we should probably fix the testsuite
> instead.
I'm happy to go along with that.
> I think that makes the second chunck of the patch
> unecessary.
Oh well, it's harmless, and it makes the test strings
consistant. If that doesn't convince you, it can go.
> Oh, and I really think you should check for *-*-linux*
> instead of *-pc-linux*.
Roger. Habit, that's what I meant.
> That said I'd like to see these tests enabled on *-*-openbsd3.9 and up
> too. Feel free to add those. If you don't I'll consider it to be an
> obvious patch once you've committed the Linux stuff.
I'd rather let you, since I can't easily test it.
Michael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [RFA] Run follow-fork tests on Linux
2005-11-26 0:05 [RFA] Run follow-fork tests on Linux Michael Snyder
2005-11-26 3:58 ` Andreas Schwab
2005-11-26 4:01 ` Mark Kettenis
@ 2005-11-26 4:03 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-11-28 14:00 ` Michael Snyder
2 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2005-11-26 4:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Snyder; +Cc: GDB Patches
On Fri, Nov 25, 2005 at 02:33:48PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
> This allows the tests "foll-fork" and "foll-vfork" to run on Linux,
> where they mostly pass. A little more verbose output from linux-nat.c
> will fix the remaining failures.
What the others said, but...
> *************** proc vfork_parent_follow_to_bp {} {
> *** 109,115 ****
> }
> send_gdb "continue\n"
> gdb_expect {
> ! -re ".*Detaching after fork from process.*Breakpoint.*18.*$gdb_prompt "\
> {pass "vfork parent follow, to bp"}
> -re "$gdb_prompt $" {fail "vfork parent follow, to bp"}
> timeout {fail "(timeout) vfork parent follow, to bp" }
> --- 109,115 ----
> }
> send_gdb "continue\n"
> gdb_expect {
> ! -re ".*Detaching after fork from.*Breakpoint.*18.*$gdb_prompt "\
> {pass "vfork parent follow, to bp"}
> -re "$gdb_prompt $" {fail "vfork parent follow, to bp"}
> timeout {fail "(timeout) vfork parent follow, to bp" }
... you are testing this on something close to HEAD, right? That
shouldn't be printed unless "set debug linux-nat 1".
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [RFA] Run follow-fork tests on Linux
2005-11-26 4:03 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
@ 2005-11-28 14:00 ` Michael Snyder
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Michael Snyder @ 2005-11-28 14:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Jacobowitz; +Cc: GDB Patches
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> ... you are testing this on something close to HEAD, right? That
> shouldn't be printed unless "set debug linux-nat 1".
Right. In view of Mark's comment, which I assume you second,
that chunk can go. But it could as well stay, too, since it's
harmless and makes the test strings more consistant with one
another.
I can go either way.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2005-11-26 4:03 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-11-26 0:05 [RFA] Run follow-fork tests on Linux Michael Snyder
2005-11-26 3:58 ` Andreas Schwab
2005-11-28 8:26 ` Michael Snyder
2005-11-26 4:01 ` Mark Kettenis
2005-11-28 13:01 ` Michael Snyder
2005-11-26 4:03 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-11-28 14:00 ` Michael Snyder
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox