From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25616 invoked by alias); 29 Oct 2015 11:30:31 -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 25603 invoked by uid 89); 29 Oct 2015 11:30:30 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 11:30:29 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A455367285; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 11:30:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t9TBUPCp026900; Thu, 29 Oct 2015 07:30:26 -0400 Message-ID: <56320351.7020409@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:03:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyY2luIEtvxZtjaWVsbmlja2k=?= , Yao Qi CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdb/linux-record fixes 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> <5628E5D6.5020706@0x04.net> In-Reply-To: <5628E5D6.5020706@0x04.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg00674.txt.bz2 On 10/22/2015 02:34 PM, Marcin Kościelnicki wrote: > 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: Many thanks for this. > > - 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 Indeed, I ran your tests and I see that too. > 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? You can mark it known failure with setup_kfail (kfail == known gdb failure). You'll just need to file a bug in bugzilla in order to have a PR number to attach to the kfail. Thanks, Pedro Alves