Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca>
To: Luis Machado <luis.machado@linaro.org>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Cc: tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com, alan.hayward@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2,v3] [AArch64] Test handling of additional brk instruction patterns
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2020 14:04:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <eb5c24bd-bf03-4ab0-7cca-9f7b159fec8f@simark.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <99a220e1-36b2-0e31-ceb7-3880bf42263c@linaro.org>

On 2020-01-29 6:30 a.m., Luis Machado wrote:
>>> +# Number of expected SIGTRAP's to get.  This needs to be kept in sync
>>> +# with the source file.
>>> +set expected_traps 3
>>> +set keep_going 1
>>> +set count 0
>>> +set old_timeout $timeout
>>> +set timeout 10
>>
>> Any reason you are changing the timeout?  There is nothing in the test that
>> looks like it would take time.
>>
> 
> If GDB doesn't support one of these instructions, it will be caught in 
> an infinite loop. The reduced timeout will prevent a long wait time 
> until we bail out.

Ok.  The worry I have with it is that if the target board has raised the timeout
on purpose, because it's testing with a slow target/link/emulator, then this will
cancel it.  In this case I'd just leave the timeout as it is.  Normally, GDB won't
be broken for this test case, so it won't matter.

Moreover, the timeout here on my x86 machine is 10 seconds by default.  I just checked
on an AArch64 box on the compile farm, it's 10 there too.  So in which case was it
useful to set it to 10?

>> If changing the timeout is really necessary, look into using with_timeout_factor.
>>
> 
> That would raise the timeout even further. We want a reduced one.
> 
> It would be nice if we could reduce the timeout with 
> with_timeout_factor. I gave it a try but it didn't work.
> 
> I think we need adjustments to make it work with a floating point 
> number. I'll look into it.

I'm not sure that's desirable for a test case to ever reduce the timeout, for the reason
explained above.

Simon


  reply	other threads:[~2020-01-29 14:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-01-15 11:52 [PATCH 0/2,v3][AArch64]Handle " Luis Machado
2020-01-15 11:52 ` [PATCH 1/2,v3] [AArch64] Recognize more program breakpoint patterns Luis Machado
2020-01-21 11:41   ` Alan Hayward
2020-01-29  2:43     ` Luis Machado
2020-01-29  7:50       ` Simon Marchi
2020-01-15 12:18 ` [PATCH 2/2,v3] [AArch64] Test handling of additional brk instruction patterns Luis Machado
2020-01-21 11:57   ` Alan Hayward
2020-01-29  3:19   ` Simon Marchi
2020-01-29 12:25     ` Luis Machado
2020-01-29 14:04       ` Simon Marchi [this message]
2020-01-29 14:07         ` Luis Machado
2020-01-29 14:10           ` Luis Machado
2020-01-29 14:28             ` Simon Marchi
2020-01-29 14:39               ` Luis Machado

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=eb5c24bd-bf03-4ab0-7cca-9f7b159fec8f@simark.ca \
    --to=simark@simark.ca \
    --cc=alan.hayward@arm.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=luis.machado@linaro.org \
    --cc=tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox