From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20417 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2015 13:34:32 -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 20403 invoked by uid 89); 22 Oct 2015 13:34:31 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: xyzzy.0x04.net Received: from xyzzy.0x04.net (HELO xyzzy.0x04.net) (109.74.193.254) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:34:21 +0000 Received: from hogfather.0x04.net (89-65-84-110.dynamic.chello.pl [89.65.84.110]) by xyzzy.0x04.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 851514012F; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:34:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [192.168.1.62] (84-10-2-59.static.chello.pl [84.10.2.59]) by hogfather.0x04.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 06A7A5800A9; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:34:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: gdb/linux-record fixes To: Pedro Alves , Yao Qi References: <1445118081-10908-1-git-send-email-koriakin@0x04.net> <56250E2D.7020009@redhat.com> <562525C1.7000205@0x04.net> <5626206E.1000405@redhat.com> <5626226D.3010203@0x04.net> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: =?UTF-8?Q?Marcin_Ko=c5=9bcielnicki?= Message-ID: <5628E5D6.5020706@0x04.net> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:39:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5626226D.3010203@0x04.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg00452.txt.bz2 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?