From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10785 invoked by alias); 19 Sep 2013 08:44:44 -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 10773 invoked by uid 89); 19 Sep 2013 08:44:43 -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, 19 Sep 2013 08:44:43 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,WEBMAIL_BODY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8J8ibcH016918 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 19 Sep 2013 04:44:37 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8J8iYV1010182; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 04:44:35 -0400 Message-ID: <523AB972.2030806@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:44:00 -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: Thomas Schwinge CC: Yue Lu , gdb-patches , Luis Machado , bug-hurd@gnu.org Subject: Re: FAIL: gdb.base/nextoverexit.exp: next over exit (the program exited) References: <87txi2i6t6.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> <5225C3C6.8090101@redhat.com> <5228DBA7.9050408@redhat.com> <522A2497.7090405@redhat.com> <52399E7F.40304@redhat.com> <87k3id1aeb.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <87k3id1aeb.fsf@kepler.schwinge.homeip.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00645.txt.bz2 On 09/19/2013 09:30 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > Hi! > > On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 15:40:40 +0800, Yue Lu wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >>> On 09/12/2013 04:05 AM, Yue Lu wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >>>>> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-09/msg00253.html > >> First thank you to tell me how to apply patch from email. I used >> webmail of gmail and directly copy patch from the email which often >> apply failed, then I had to patch line by line. Now I used mutt to >> save email to mbox file then apply it, life changed! Before you told >> me this, I never imaged this, so thanks! > > Well, never assume that we'd use any convoluted procedures, such as > manually copying a patch's text. ;-) Never hesitate to ask if you think > some process is too complicated to be done manually -- there will always > be someone who is happy to tell you about his creative solution. > >> I have test your patch, seems need a tiny fix. This is just a spelling >> mistaken I think. > > Right; I had come to the same conclusion, see my message in the other > thread. > > >> After add this change, the gdb can work. But I have found a little >> strange from the origin gdb. >> When I set a breakpoint, then I run the inferior, after hit the >> breakpoint, I just input next next until the inferior exit, then the >> gdb will complain this: >> [Inferior 1 (bogus thread id 0) exited normally] >> Thread-specific breakpoint -37 deleted - thread 4 is gone. >> Thread-specific breakpoint -38 deleted - thread 4 is gone. >> Thread-specific breakpoint -39 deleted - thread 4 is gone. >> Thread-specific breakpoint 0 deleted - thread 4 is gone. >> >> I am not sure why this will output or is reasonable. >> >> I got this output like this: >> $./gdb gdb >> $b main >> $r >> $n >> $n >> ... >> $q (quit the debugged gdb) > > "As of recently", I notice the same behavior for GDB on both x86 > GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd, also resulting in the gdb.base/nextoverexit.exp > test failing. So, I don't think this is related to any Hurd > patches/behavior, but instead a general issue. > > Quoting from the x86 GNU/Linux' gdb/testsuite/gdb.base2/gdb.log: > > Breakpoint 1, main () at ../../../Ferry_Tagscherer/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nextoverexit.c:21 > 21 exit (0); > (gdb) next > [Inferior 1 (process 25208) exited normally] > Thread-specific breakpoint -5 deleted - thread 1 is gone. > Thread-specific breakpoint -6 deleted - thread 1 is gone. > Thread-specific breakpoint -7 deleted - thread 1 is gone. > Thread-specific breakpoint 0 deleted - thread 1 is gone. > (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/nextoverexit.exp: next over exit (the program exited) > > Can others confirm this/is this a known issue? Hmm, that message is new, but we shouldn't be seeing it for internal breakpoints... That'll be my fault. I'll take a look. -- Pedro Alves