Re: General regressions in gdbserver mode [Re: [rfc target-side break conditions 0/5 v2] General info]

[Luis Gustavo <luis_gustavo@mentor.com>]

Hi Jan,

On 02/25/2012 12:20 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> Hi Luis,
>
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 16:25:03 +0100, Luis Gustavo wrote:
>> I've checked this whole series in now.
>
> while thanks for this new feature the testsuite results broke in
> 	http://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/TestingGDB#Testing_gdbserver_in_a_native_configuration
> mode such as:
>
> (gdb) continue
> Continuing.
> Breakpoint 1, main (argc=1, argv=0x7fffffffdbd8, envp=0x7fffffffdbe8) at ./gdb.base/break.c:89
> 89          if (argc == 12345) {  /* an unlikely value<  2^16, in case uninited */ /* set breakpoint 6 here */
> (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/condbreak.exp: rerun to main
>
> ->
>
> (gdb) continue
> Continuing.
> Found breakpoint condition.
> Found breakpoint condition.
> Found breakpoint condition.
> Remote connection closed
> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/condbreak.exp: rerun to main
>
> I do not have exact results today (offtopic) but the regression spans across
> the testsuite in general.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Jan

What kind of setup you're using? I have full passes for this testcase 
using the native gdbserver mode on x86-32 for example.

Breakpoint 1, main (argc=1, argv=0xbfffdef4, envp=0xbfffdefc) at 
../../../gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.c:89^M
89          if (argc == 12345) {  /* an unlikely value < 2^16, in case 
uninited */ /* set breakpoint 6 here */^M
(gdb) PASS: gdb.base/condbreak.exp: rerun to main
continue^M
Continuing.^M
^M
Breakpoint 5, main (argc=1, argv=0xbfffdef4, envp=0xbfffdefc) at 
../../../gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/break.c:93^M
93          printf ("%d\n", factorial (atoi ("6")));  /* set breakpoint 
1 here */^M
(gdb) PASS: gdb.base/condbreak.exp: run until breakpoint set at a line 
number
Found breakpoint condition.^M
Found breakpoint condition.^M
Found breakpoint condition.^M
Found breakpoint condition.^M
Found breakpoint condition.^M
Found breakpoint condition.^M
720^M
continue^M
Continuing.^M

I wonder if it's something wrong with agent expression parsing.

Luis