From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13970 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2013 14:39:17 -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 13961 invoked by uid 89); 29 Aug 2013 14:39:17 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:39:17 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com 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 r7TEdExP026748 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:39:15 -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 r7TEdCG2014617; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 10:39:13 -0400 Message-ID: <521F5D10.8080401@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 14:39:00 -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: Jan Kratochvil CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [commit 7.6.1 only] [patch gdbserver 7.6.1 only] Fix fd leak regression References: <20130829111053.GA25662@host2.jankratochvil.net> <521F3B71.1010007@redhat.com> <20130829130359.GA31063@host2.jankratochvil.net> <521F5804.1080604@redhat.com> <20130829142719.GA4036@host2.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20130829142719.GA4036@host2.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00873.txt.bz2 On 08/29/2013 03:27 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:17:40 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: >>> +set test "system fd behavior is known" >>> +set status [remote_exec target "[standard_output_file $testfile]"] >>> +if { [lindex $status 0] == 0 } { >>> + pass $test >>> +} else { >>> + fail $test >>> +} >>> +remote_exec target "ls -l /proc/self/fd/" >> >> Before gdbserver's fix, do we get one extra fd from the dejagnu >> leak, and another extra from gdbserver's leak? What if we made >> $testfile count open fds, and then compare that between running >> under gdb/gdbserver and just under remote_exec ? > > BTW not sure if it is clear It wasn't at first, but I figured it out when I noticed it had no ChangeLog entry. > but this gdb/testsuite/ part was sent > accidentally, there is even written no real test and I have not checked in > anything as I got stuck on the DejaGNU bug. Understood. I was suggesting a possible way to not need to wait for the dejagnu bug to be fixed. If what I suggested actually works, I don't see a downside -- we'd just be checking whether gdbserver itself introduces any leak, which is all we should care about? > > I have sent a bugreport to and it got processed today > although the mail has not yet appeared in the archive: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-dejagnu/ > > I hope DejaGNU gets fixed soon so the testcase can be later written as > UNSUPPORTED (UNTESTED?) with buggy DejaGNU. Ack. -- Pedro Alves