From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25694 invoked by alias); 26 Oct 2011 03:45:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 25680 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Oct 2011 03:45:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net (HELO elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 26 Oct 2011 03:45:07 +0000 Received: from [70.170.59.51] (helo=macbook2.local) by elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1RIuQM-0000q0-58 for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2011 23:45:06 -0400 Message-ID: <4EA78237.5090305@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 05:37:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Status of 'blacklist' patch? References: <4E8DCE67.80507@earthlink.net> <4E92E639.7000402@earthlink.net> <83ipnjs9i1.fsf@gnu.org> <83ipndc92n.fsf@gnu.org> <83ehy0ded8.fsf@gnu.org> <4EA753C4.60408@mentor.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: ae6f8838ff913eba0cc1426638a40ef67e972de0d01da9401db15165b7dbcecbf4cf195a168ebe87350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00691.txt.bz2 On 10/25/11 6:05 PM, Justin Lebar wrote: > Rollup patch is attached, incorporating all feedback so far (I > think!). As usual, you should be able to use interdiff to view the > changes. Let me know if that doesn't work and I can make git spit it > out. > > Unfortunately the tests are randomly failing on me. I'm not sure > what's going on, but it looks like we're not always waiting long > enough after runto_main, somehow. > > The relevant expect code (in gdb.base/skip.exp) is: > > if ![runto_main] { fail "skip tests suppressed" } > send_gdb "step\n" > # XXX This gdb_test sometimes fails, due to an apparent race. > gdb_test "bt" "\\s*\\#0\\s+main.*" "step after all ignored" > You need a gdb_expect after the send_gdb, otherwise the output from the step leaks into the next gdb_test and things get confused in the way you're seeing. I would use gdb_test for the "step" also, it's much simpler; send_gdb is only needed for unusual testing situations, and this is not one of them. :-) Stan