Re: [PATCH 5/6] Test tracepoints are installed or not

Yao Qi
2012-12-12T15:00:30Z

On 12/12/2012 08:23 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> Not sure what you mean. The only change compared to the original one
> would be the new
>
> set test "tracepoint on pendfunc2 installed"
>
> line. Sorry if that wasn't clear. (you'd probably change the other pass
> to be 'pass "$test"' too then.)
>

OK, I get your points now.

>> >
>>> >>It seems best to me to only use exp_continue in cases we won't to
>>> >>consume/skip output, and in the case of this patch, split the two
>>> >>tests into two consecutive gdb_expects.
>> >
>> >If this way, we can't handle that two notifications arrive in a
>> >reversed order (which is also correct).
> This seems to be crux of the issue here. I don't understand how
> reverse order would be correct. This:
>
> =breakpoint-modified,bkpt={number="1",type="tracepoint".*.*times=\"0\".*installed="n"
> =breakpoint-modified,bkpt={number="1",type="tracepoint".*.*times=\"0\".*installed="y"
>
> means the frontend ends up thinking the tracepoint is installed, while this:
>
> =breakpoint-modified,bkpt={number="1",type="tracepoint".*.*times=\"0\".*installed="y"
> =breakpoint-modified,bkpt={number="1",type="tracepoint".*.*times=\"0\".*installed="n"
>
> means the frontend ends up thinking the tracepoint is not installed, which
> I'd think is not what we want in this test.
>

I linked this with other issue I am thinking about recently. It is
about 'gdb may send notifications on breakpoint 1 and breakpoint 2 in
different orders', and how to write test to handle. Sorry for the
confusion and messing up the discussion.

Again, thanks for your patient review, Pedro.

--
Yao (é½å°§)