From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 45166 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2015 15:25:30 -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 45157 invoked by uid 89); 3 Mar 2015 15:25:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 15:25:29 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t23FPPQe011694 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 3 Mar 2015 10:25:26 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t23FPORu031517; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 10:25:25 -0500 Message-ID: <54F5D263.4080008@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 15:25:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Metzger, Markus T" CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrace: avoid tp != NULL assertion References: <1423473902-2286-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <54F4DF9D.3060400@redhat.com> <54F5A12F.9000702@redhat.com> <54F5BA0B.2000106@redhat.com> <54F5BF28.5030108@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg00088.txt.bz2 On 03/03/2015 02:44 PM, Metzger, Markus T wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Pedro Alves [mailto:palves@redhat.com] >> Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 3:03 PM >> To: Metzger, Markus T >> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org >> Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrace: avoid tp != NULL assertion > > >>>>> No, that wasn't the reason for replacing the assert. There are no such >>>>> errors in the gdb.btrace suite (which is mostly single-threaded) with my >>>>> patch and I have not seen any such errors otherwise, either. >>>> >>>> Then it sounds like we're either lacking basic tests, or the threaded tests >>>> are somehow not running correctly when gdb is a 32-bit program. I think >>>> that if you step any non-leader thread, you should see it happen. >>>> Grepping the tests, I think gdb.btrace/multi-thread-step.exp should have >>>> caught it. My machine doesn't do btrace, so I can't try it myself... >>>> >>>> BTW, did any existing test in the testsuite catch the assertion we're >>>> fixing? >>> >>> Almost all of them when run on 32-bit systems; -m32 on 64-bit systems >> does >>> not catch this. >> >> Right, that's why I said "when gdb is a 32-bit program". Sounds like >> no existing test tries a "step" when not replaying then. It'd be very >> nice to have one. Can I convince you to add one? :-) > > The multi-thread-step.exp test does not catch it because it uses "cont", > which works fine. When I add a "step" before the "cont", I get the > "No thread" error when using my old patch instead of your new patch. > Or I get the assert when using neither my old nor your new patch. > But then, I got the assert already on other tests. > > With my patch dropped and your patch committed, what is the new > test expected to catch? You're getting me confused... The test was expected to catch the assertion, given that apparently no other test was catching it -- from the dialog above, one understands no test would be catching this before (that's what I explicitly asked), but now you're saying the opposite. If indeed there are already tests that triggered the error/internal-error before the fix, then I agree a new test is not necessary. -- Pedro Alves