From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 118752 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2016 17:43:15 -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 118739 invoked by uid 89); 25 Feb 2016 17:43:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= 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, 25 Feb 2016 17:43:14 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2996B85545; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 17:43:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u1PHhBq9022923; Thu, 25 Feb 2016 12:43:12 -0500 Message-ID: <56CF3D2F.6080002@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 17:43:00 -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: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/8] New test about step over clone syscall References: <1455892594-2294-1-git-send-email-yao.qi@linaro.org> <1455892594-2294-9-git-send-email-yao.qi@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: <1455892594-2294-9-git-send-email-yao.qi@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00818.txt.bz2 On 02/19/2016 02:36 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > + if { $syscall == "clone" } { > + # Create a breakpoint in the child with the condition > + # which is false, so that GDBserver can get the > + # event from the child but GDB doesn't see it. In > + # this way, we don't have to adjust test flow for > + # "clone". I think this comment should mention this is a regression test for a previous bug. I'd file the description of patch #1 as a PR, and reference the PR here. I had read that patch before this one, and it took me a bit to see the connection. > + gdb_test "break clone_fn if main == 0" > + } Thanks, Pedro Alves