From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20673 invoked by alias); 12 Aug 2015 20:40:40 -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 20661 invoked by uid 89); 12 Aug 2015 20:40:40 -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 20:40:39 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.41]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1ZPcp9-0000MC-Mv from Luis_Gustavo@mentor.com ; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:40:35 -0700 Received: from [172.30.12.5] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Wed, 12 Aug 2015 13:40:35 -0700 Message-ID: <55CBAF3F.7070602@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2015 20:40:00 -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 CC: Pedro Alves , 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> <55CBA0D1.5000203@codesourcery.com> <20150812195948.GH22245@adacore.com> <55CBAA17.4040605@codesourcery.com> <20150812203322.GB9183@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20150812203322.GB9183@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg00327.txt.bz2 On 08/12/2015 05:33 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > I tried to clarify the purpose of the testcase by adding a comment > inside it. Let me know if this isn't enough, and we'll try to improve. > >> Ok. So i think i misunderstood the purpose of the testcase there. In reality >> the testcase is not testing the fix itself, but rather introducing a new >> test not related to the problem, except in the amd64 architecture, where it >> really tests the problem. >> >> It just confused me that the test is generic for other non-amd64 >> architectures and specific to the amd64 problem you saw. >> >> I'd expect a generic solib test to be included in one of our shared library >> tests, but then you'd have to shape it in a way that would exercise your >> displaced stepping problem. > > I understand the first paragraph, but I'm having trouble with the last > one. The testcase as I wrote it does exercise the issue being fixed > on amd64, and I verified that I get 1 FAIL without the patch. Did > I misunderstand you? I was just pointing at the fact that we already have shared library tests, so those could be expanded to include this inter-dso call as opposed to having a different set of tests like your patch did. But you'd need to shape it in a way that exercises your amd64 failure mode then. In any case, i'm good with the test. I just want to give it a try to be sure.