From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7460 invoked by alias); 12 Aug 2015 20:31:11 -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 7450 invoked by uid 89); 12 Aug 2015 20:31:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:31:10 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-05.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.43]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1ZPcfz-00062Z-Bd from Luis_Gustavo@mentor.com ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:31:07 -0700 Received: from [172.30.12.5] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-05.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:31:06 -0700 Message-ID: <55CBAD06.4090707@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:31:00 -0000 From: Luis Machado Reply-To: Luis Machado User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker , Pedro Alves CC: , Sergio Durigan Junior Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/18] All-stop on top of non-stop References: <1432250354-2721-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <55C4E3BD.8040801@redhat.com> <20150812183208.GA24901@adacore.com> <55CB9907.9080506@redhat.com> <20150812202600.GA9183@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20150812202600.GA9183@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg00325.txt.bz2 On 08/12/2015 05:26 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >>> This uncovered what I think is a latent bug in the "how-did-we-never- >>> see-this-before" category. >> >> Wow! Indeed. Many thanks for tracking this down and fixing it. >> >> A couple minor comments below, but this looks good to me. > > And thanks for the super-quick review. > > Attached is what I ended up pushing. It should address all your > comments, and also add a comment in the testcase script to explain > its purpose. If this isn't sufficient for Luis and Sergio, then > we can try to find other solutions (including renaming the testcase, > if necessary). My idea of a testcase comment is at the beginning of the testcase file, explaining what the test does and why it does it. I'd mention the amd64 example as well, since it is part of why the test was created in the first place. That should give others enough background to pursue an investigation about why this potentially fails for them. My 2 cents anyway.