From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15025 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2012 15:50:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 15009 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jul 2012 15:50:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:50:19 +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 (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6PFoH7n024410 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:50:17 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6PFoF1R023925 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:50:16 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Marc Khouzam Cc: "'gdb-patches\@sourceware.org'" Subject: Re: [patch] MI ignores conditions for pending breakpoints References: <87txwypa85.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:50:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Marc Khouzam's message of "Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:11:24 -0400") Message-ID: <87k3xrkfgo.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-07/txt/msg00545.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Marc" == Marc Khouzam writes: Marc> Here is a test case for the problem. I'm not thrilled Marc> with it but it does fail before the fix and pass Marc> after, so it is probably sufficient. Marc> What I don't like about it is that it verifies Marc> that the condition prevents the breakpoint from Marc> hitting instead of making sure a breakpoint hits at Marc> the right condition. I had to do that because the alternative Marc> is to use a variable in the sharedlib for the condition, Marc> but then I would need to explicitly specify the sharedlib Marc> file name and line number when setting the breakpoint which Marc> didn't seem very future-proof. Marc> What do you think? I think as long as it exercises the bug -- fails before the patch and passes after -- and is reasonably clean, then it is fine. Coding in the name of the library, etc, is also fine; there are some tools in the test suite to make this a bit less fragile, namely using variables in place of file names and using gdb_get_line_number. I don't have any problem with the approach in the patch though. Marc> +# Set pending breakpoint with a condition via MI Marc> +# We use a condition that will prevent the bp from hitting Periods after sentences. Marc> +# We should not stop on the breakpiont at pendfunc0 Typo, "breakpoint". Ok with those changes plus a ChangeLog entry. Tom