From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 48072 invoked by alias); 23 Mar 2016 13:31:40 -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 48060 invoked by uid 89); 23 Mar 2016 13:31:40 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= 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; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:31:30 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E5E6BC049D7F; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:31:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u2NDVRKm026357; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 09:31:28 -0400 Subject: Re: JIT debugging (Attach and speed) To: Yichao Yu References: <56F168D7.9050405@redhat.com> <56F16F8F.9050404@redhat.com> <56F1759F.3070100@redhat.com> <56F17A23.90909@redhat.com> <56F28B17.4060508@redhat.com> Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, Paul Pluzhnikov From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <56F29AAF.5080904@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 13:31:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56F28B17.4060508@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-03/txt/msg00038.txt.bz2 On 03/23/2016 12:24 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 03/23/2016 02:18 AM, Yichao Yu wrote: > >>> It'd be very nice if we had a _new_ test that covers your use case, >>> to avoid regressing again. That likely makes the patch bigger than >>> what we could accept without a copyright assignment though. If you'd >>> like to pursue that, let me know and I'll send you the forms. >> >> I've got a simple patch that fixes the issue for me and AFAICT all of >> the failing tests are racy and/or failing on this machine before the >> change too. I haven't add test yet since I'm not so sure how to add it >> (I found test for both jit interface and attach but haven't figured >> out how to write a new one yet...). > > Excellent, this helps a lot. > > I have an idea for the test, so I'll handle it. Let me bundle > things in a proper patch and post it to gdb-patches. Stay tuned. Posted: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-03/msg00465.html Thanks, Pedro Alves