Re: [PATCH] gdb.base/execl-update-breakpoints.exp: Don't execl forever

[Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca>]

On 2026-07-09 13:58, Pedro Alves wrote:
> execl-update-breakpoints.c is compiled as both
> execl-update-breakpoints1 and execl-update-breakpoints2.
> 
> execl-update-breakpoints1 checks to see if the last character in its
> filename is '1', and if so, replace it with '2' and execl the result.
> 
> On Windows, this fails to take into account that the filename may have
> an ".exe" extension.  The result is that the execl-update-breakpoints1
> executable execs itself forever.
> 
> This patch fixes it by taking the .exe extension into account.
> 
> (Note that neither native Windows nor Cygwin support following execs,
> and maybe the testcase will eventually be skipped there, but even
> then, if someone enables follow-exec testing there, we'd want it to
> handle the .exe extension, so I think it's better to adjust the
> testcase than not.)
> 
> Now, on e.g. GNU/Linux, if you run execl-update-breakpoints1 manually,
> you'll see that it also execs forever, but this time, what happens is
> that execl-update-breakpoints1 execs execl-update-breakpoints2, and
> then it's execl-update-breakpoints2 that execs itself forever.  There
> is no reason for execl-update-breakpoints2 to exec.  It's just that
> the testcase is assuming that the process is killed when the testcase
> is over.  It's just cleaner if execl-update-breakpoints1 execs
> execl-update-breakpoints2, and then execl-update-breakpoints2 just
> cleanly exits.  The patch does that too.
> 
> And then, the test program should really be erroring out if neither
> '1' nor '2' is found at the tail of the executable.  Done too.

So the goal is just to have one exec and then exit?  Could we just pass
a regular argument (argv[1]) instead of tweaking argv[0]?  Like the
process could be launched without argument at first, and then it execs
itself with an argument, and just the presence of that argument would be
a flag to say "don't re-exec, just exit".

Simon