From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4494 invoked by alias); 16 Nov 2017 10:54:02 -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 4295 invoked by uid 89); 16 Nov 2017 10:54:01 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KB_WAM_FROM_NAME_SINGLEWORD,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=no 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 ESMTP; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:54:00 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D480BC058EDD; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:53:58 +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 CEE3860F87; Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:53:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Add a 'starti' command. To: John Baldwin References: <20170911220803.73819-1-jhb@FreeBSD.org> <1615021.krJEU3LQPO@ralph.baldwin.cx> <5866637.KqDYZAFHHe@ralph.baldwin.cx> Cc: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <81036fde-a756-594f-d347-e895b5f47037@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:54:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5866637.KqDYZAFHHe@ralph.baldwin.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-11/txt/msg00306.txt.bz2 On 11/15/2017 11:31 PM, John Baldwin wrote: > On Wednesday, November 15, 2017 08:23:41 PM Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 11/15/2017 08:11 PM, John Baldwin wrote: >> "Installation error" looks quite odd to me. Why did that happen? > > That I don't know. I think I have seen similar exceptions in the past if the > python scripts were not installed to the shared data directory but python was > enabled via --with-python. I wouldn't expect a buildbot to be in that > situation. Yeah. I don't think we should make the testcase cope with that. > > I looked at some of the other failures referenced at the URL and found some > other results I don't quite understand. For example, for Fedora-x86_64-m32, > a test run from earlier today passed starti.exp without issues, but the test > linked above failed differently: > > (gdb) gdb_expect_list pattern: /\$2 = 1/ > continue > Continuing. > $2 = 1 > > gdb_expect_list pattern: /.*Breakpoint .*main \(\) at .*starti.c.*/ > Breakpoint 1, main () at /home/gdb-buildbot-2/fedora-x86-64-4/fedora-x86-64-m32/build/gdb/testsuite/../../../binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/starti.c:29 > 29 return 0; > (gdb) gdb_expect_list pattern: // > FAIL: gdb.base/starti.exp: continue (pattern 3 + sentinel) (timeout) > testcase /home/gdb-buildbot-2/fedora-x86-64-4/fedora-x86-64-m32/build/gdb/testsuite/../../../binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/starti.exp completed in 10 seconds > > Here the 'Breakpoint' pattern should have matched and it appears that the > implicit empty pattern used to match the prompt didn't match? > > Trying to test the patch I posted earlier today I had an odd failure where > 'gdb_breakpoint main' failed, but only the first time I ran the test. The > failure seemed to involve expect missing the line confirming the breakpoint > was set. Ehen I tried to reproduce this all my other trials of running the > modified test succeeded. It does look like the Fedora-i686 test from the > link failed in this way, but the failure doesn't make sense to me. It FAILs > the setting of the breakpoint before it tries to set the breakpoint: > > 0xf7fd5ad0 in _start () from /lib/ld-linux.so.2 > (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/starti.exp: starti > > (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/starti.exp: setting breakpoint at main > gdb_expect_list pattern: /\$2 = 1/ > break main > Breakpoint 1 at 0x80483f9: file /home/gdb-buildbot/fedora-x86-64-1/fedora-i686/build/gdb/testsuite/../../../binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/starti.c, line 29. > (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/starti.exp: continue (pattern 1) > gdb_expect_list pattern: /.*Breakpoint .*main \(\) at .*starti.c.*/ > gdb_expect_list pattern: // > testcase /home/gdb-buildbot/fedora-x86-64-1/fedora-i686/build/gdb/testsuite/../../../binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/starti.exp completed in 0 seconds > > (Here it never runs "continue" after setting the breakpoint either, though > "continue" is the action that has the \$2 = 1 pattern in its list of > expected responses.) Sounds like the sort of trouble you'd get if an earlier "(gdb)" prompt was left in expect's buffer, somehow. Thanks, Pedro Alves