From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 66032 invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2018 16:44:38 -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 65746 invoked by uid 89); 14 Jun 2018 16:44:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 16:44:37 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 249FB738E0; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 16:44:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A55EE11166EB; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 16:44:35 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Avoid gdb.base/fork-running-state.exp lingering processes (Re: [gdb/testsuite] Fix hang in fork-running-state.c) To: Tom de Vries References: <20180612155134.7fninj4us5lq4hfc@localhost.localdomain> <21cb1f1d-fad1-e9c5-a106-b0b67a1f7a50@redhat.com> <08501ce0-48b5-78f2-3938-662ab3d52553@redhat.com> <81f5ddc0-e521-07d8-f378-6e12d7e7f529@suse.de> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <5e9a729d-07ee-2385-fd47-f929436dadf0@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 16:44:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <81f5ddc0-e521-07d8-f378-6e12d7e7f529@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-06/txt/msg00367.txt.bz2 On 06/14/2018 05:06 PM, Tom de Vries wrote: > On 06/14/2018 02:59 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> Like so? >> > > I tried it out, and it works for me. > > The approach looks ok to me. > Great, I'll push it in in a bit. > I guess the alarms (180) calls are no longer necessary? It's better to still have them, in case something goes wrong, gdb crashes or the test fails, etc. Thanks, Pedro Alves