From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26289 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2013 10:59:31 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 26254 invoked by uid 89); 1 Aug 2013 10:59:30 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 10:59:30 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1V4qbJ-0002eg-Nn from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 03:59:21 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-04.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.41]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 1 Aug 2013 03:59:21 -0700 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 03:59:20 -0700 Message-ID: <51FA3F61.8040802@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 10:59:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: Muhammad Waqas , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH with testcase] Bug 11568 - delete thread-specific breakpoint on the thread exit References: <51F619CE.5040407@codesourcery.com> <51F633E5.7000302@codesourcery.com> <51F65519.2080806@codesourcery.com> <51F67992.30704@codesourcery.com> <51F7967E.3060900@codesourcery.com> <51F8791A.1090704@codesourcery.com> <51FA3D97.6040400@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <51FA3D97.6040400@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 On 08/01/2013 06:51 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > Hmm. All-stop and non-stop behave different by design. What's the > point of making an all-stop test work in non-stop? async vs sync Pedro, Is it an all-stop test? I think it should work on both all-stop and non-stop. > is a different issue though -- that should be transparent. Did you > mean just async? I meant async + non-stop. I get one fail from time to time when I run the test with async on and non-stop on. I run the test with async on only, but can't get one fail in ten runs. -- Yao (齐尧)