From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 934 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2013 11:27:34 -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 925 invoked by uid 89); 1 Aug 2013 11:27:33 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Aug 2013 11:27:33 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r71BRPke018837 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 1 Aug 2013 07:27:25 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r71BRMKT013983; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 07:27:23 -0400 Message-ID: <51FA4619.8010006@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 11:27:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi CC: Pedro Alves , Muhammad Waqas , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, tromey@redhat.com, ali_anwar@codesourcery.com 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> <51FA3F61.8040802@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <51FA3F61.8040802@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00013.txt.bz2 On 08/01/2013 11:58 AM, Yao Qi wrote: > 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. Then it should explicitly test both modes. Say, move the body to a procedure, and call it twice. Running the gdb.threads/ tests with forced non-stop mode really makes no sense. >> 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. -- Pedro Alves