From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 105623 invoked by alias); 15 Sep 2015 15:56:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 105610 invoked by uid 89); 15 Sep 2015 15:56:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:56:26 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A078461D8; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:56:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t8FFuNmw023762; Tue, 15 Sep 2015 11:56:24 -0400 Message-ID: <55F83FA7.9090702@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 15:56:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Don Breazeal CC: "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: problem with new vforkdone stop reply in 7.10 References: <55F828D9.8050100@redhat.com> <55F8307D.5090305@redhat.com> <55F83D66.1010603@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <55F83D66.1010603@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 On 09/15/2015 04:46 PM, Don Breazeal wrote: > Thanks for taking care of this. I don't think you are missing > anything. I think I just over-simplified the VFORK_DONE packet > starting in my first implementation. The changes make sense to > me. It seems like you have this covered, but let me know if I > can help at all. Writing tests would be a tremendous help. > Absolutely, that should be report_exec_events. I missed making that > change from a previous version of the patchset that didn't use the > report_xxx_events variables. Alright, I'll split in two, and push then in. Testing showed no regressions. > I've started looking at adding some tests to plug some of the gaps in > fork/exec event testing. Currently I'm looking at a test that kills the > fork parent while stopped at a fork catchpoint. It seems like I should > add non-stop cases to foll-fork.exp and foll-vfork.exp as well. And > maybe the case where there are multiple vforks in progress at the same > time, if I can come up with something that is reliable. That would be much appreciated! Thanks, Pedro Alves