Re: gdb/linux-record fixes

["Marcin Kościelnicki" <koriakin@0x04.net>]

On 20/10/15 13:15, Marcin Kościelnicki wrote:
> On 20/10/15 13:07, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 10/19/2015 06:17 PM, Marcin Kościelnicki wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, they're not covered by the testsuite.  Actually, there seem to be
>>> only two tests in gdb.reverse suite that even touch syscalls:
>>> sigall-reverse (signal, sigprocmask, exit_group) and watch-reverse
>>> (read, write).  No wonder that syscall handling is buggy...
>>>
>>> Stepping forward and backward over pipe/time/waitpid would indeed do the
>>> trick for patch #6.
>>
>> Can I convince you to add that to the patch (and likewise to others that
>> might not be overly hard)?
>
> I'll do that, if I'm not overcome by dejaGNU...  I have no idea how that
> stuff works at the moment.
>
>> BTW, you'll also need to include ChangeLog entries.  Please check here:
>>
>>    https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/ContributionChecklist
>
> OK, will do.
>

Here comes v2:

- ChangeLog entries added
- I've split the last patch in two (termios and x32)
- test cases are included that exercise #2 (getresuid), #5 (readmsg), #6 
(time, waitpid, pipe), #8 (fstatat), #12 (readv); testing the rest would 
be rather contrived

Unfortunately, my waitpid test appears to trigger another bug - going 
over a fork with a breakpoint active while recording causes an error:

record-full.c:1716: internal-error: record_full_remove_breakpoint: 
removing unknown breakpoint

I'll try to debug this problem this weekend.  Should I remove the 
waitpid test from this patchset for now, or mark it as an expected-fail 
somehow?