From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9592 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2012 15:00:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 9565 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Dec 2012 15:00:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:00:20 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1TinnG-0007UQ-V8 from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:00:19 -0800 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-02.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.96.206]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:00:18 -0800 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-02.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.96.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 07:00:17 -0800 Message-ID: <50C89C03.8000805@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 15:00:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120911 Thunderbird/15.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] Test tracepoints are installed or not References: <1354596282-32526-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1354596282-32526-6-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <50C1E38F.2020108@redhat.com> <50C1F553.8030502@codesourcery.com> <50C1FB3A.8050802@redhat.com> <50C489B3.8050101@codesourcery.com> <50C7731A.7040007@gmail.com> <50C7F30C.1050906@codesourcery.com> <50C87754.7010807@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <50C87754.7010807@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 2012-12/txt/msg00389.txt.bz2 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 (齐尧)