From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id JjtBO7KSnmEeYwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 14:29:54 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id E23471F0CE; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 14:29:54 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DCB31E940 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 14:29:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BE143857824 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 19:29:53 +0000 (GMT) Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 523B73858C27 for ; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 19:29:43 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 523B73858C27 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca Received: from [172.16.0.95] (192-222-180-24.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.180.24]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 57E721E940; Wed, 24 Nov 2021 14:29:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb fix for catch-syscall.exp To: Carl Love , John Baldwin , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <3b8e450b9fb4f4bec97a6bfbe6e6a4816be780ee.camel@us.ibm.com> <4d51616392553dd308672f65f18909ebf0513fc0.camel@us.ibm.com> <95fbffc3-8d30-6e75-4f52-f6e534a13b20@FreeBSD.org> <8269783078cecf5fe7fb7bea8d546256aafc7071.camel@us.ibm.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 14:29:41 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8269783078cecf5fe7fb7bea8d546256aafc7071.camel@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: tl Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Rogerio Alves Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-11-23 8:15 p.m., Carl Love wrote: > Simon: > > On Tue, 2021-11-23 at 15:34 -0500, Simon Marchi wrote: >> If you all agree that it's a bug, I would suggest reverting this >> patch >> and making a patch that kfails the test when on powerpc. And >> ideally, >> someone should dig to understand why we don't see the return on >> powerpc >> (and fix it), but I'm not here to tell what other people should work >> on :). > > OK, I think for powerpc the test should be a xfail. Looking at the > README, kfail is for gdb known issues, xfail is for issues in the > environment including the OS. If we can already determine that it's the kernel fault, then xfail is appropriate. But I haven't actually dug to find out who is at fault. > I see xfail takes two arguments, the first one is the gdb bug number. > So, I will need to file a bug before I finish this patch. I just filed it here: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28623 > I am hoping someone has a suggestion on how to improve my patch to add > the xfail. The issue is since Powerpc doesn't print the "Catchpoint 1 > (returned from syscall execve)" but rather stops at main, the test > should not issue the continue command after the xfail. In the case of > the xfail, I need to pass 0 backup so the if statement in proc > test_catch_syscall_execve can decide if the continue command should be > issued or not. The change is a bit messy having to pass the return > value up. Wondering if anyone has a better idea how to add the xfail? > > Note, so far I have only tested this on Powerpc. Patch is not ready > for committing. I try to look at this later. For now I will push a revert patch, since we agree on the fact that this is a bug (and the test should not expect the buggy behavior). Simon