From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 93995 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2015 14:45:34 -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 93986 invoked by uid 89); 3 Mar 2015 14:45:34 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mga09.intel.com Received: from mga09.intel.com (HELO mga09.intel.com) (134.134.136.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:45:33 +0000 Received: from orsmga001.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.18]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Mar 2015 06:44:08 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 Received: from irsmsx107.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.99]) by orsmga001.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Mar 2015 06:45:30 -0800 Received: from irsmsx104.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.5.145]) by IRSMSX107.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.10.35]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 3 Mar 2015 14:44:30 +0000 From: "Metzger, Markus T" To: Pedro Alves CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: RE: [PATCH] btrace: avoid tp != NULL assertion Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 14:45:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <1423473902-2286-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <54F4DF9D.3060400@redhat.com> <54F5A12F.9000702@redhat.com> <54F5BA0B.2000106@redhat.com> <54F5BF28.5030108@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <54F5BF28.5030108@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-03/txt/msg00085.txt.bz2 > -----Original Message----- > From: Pedro Alves [mailto:palves@redhat.com] > Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2015 3:03 PM > To: Metzger, Markus T > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrace: avoid tp !=3D NULL assertion > >>> No, that wasn't the reason for replacing the assert. There are no su= ch > >>> errors in the gdb.btrace suite (which is mostly single-threaded) with= my > >>> patch and I have not seen any such errors otherwise, either. > >> > >> Then it sounds like we're either lacking basic tests, or the threaded = tests > >> are somehow not running correctly when gdb is a 32-bit program. I thi= nk > >> that if you step any non-leader thread, you should see it happen. > >> Grepping the tests, I think gdb.btrace/multi-thread-step.exp should ha= ve > >> caught it. My machine doesn't do btrace, so I can't try it myself... > >> > >> BTW, did any existing test in the testsuite catch the assertion we're > >> fixing? > > > > Almost all of them when run on 32-bit systems; -m32 on 64-bit systems > does > > not catch this. >=20 > Right, that's why I said "when gdb is a 32-bit program". Sounds like > no existing test tries a "step" when not replaying then. It'd be very > nice to have one. Can I convince you to add one? :-) The multi-thread-step.exp test does not catch it because it uses "cont", which works fine. When I add a "step" before the "cont", I get the "No thread" error when using my old patch instead of your new patch. Or I get the assert when using neither my old nor your new patch. But then, I got the assert already on other tests. With my patch dropped and your patch committed, what is the new test expected to catch? Regards, Markus. Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen, Deutschland Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Christian Lamprechter, Hannes Schwaderer, Douglas Lusk Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr./VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt a.M. (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052