This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [testsuite] Kfail signals.exp failures
Yes, sigbpt.exp passes.
breakpoints/1702 is about the tendency of ia32 hardware to step two
instructions over int $0x80. That does not affect this test case; see
the analysis in gdb/1738.
1702 is about broken kernels. Both the s390 and PPC in question have a
fixed kernel. Since sigbpt.exp passes it soulds like your kernel is fixed?
Please explain why the KFAILs are not correct, or why a new test is
needed. This is a bug in GDB; I analyzed the bug, filed a bug report,
and marked the test which fails because of this bug as KFAILed to the
PR. Judging from the historical use of XFAIL, this is the precise bug
that the test was written for.
Here's the original comment that went with the XFAILs:
# GDB yanks out the breakpoints to step over the breakpoint it
# stopped at, which means the breakpoint at handler is yanked.
# But if SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P, we won't get another chance to
# reinsert them (at least not with procfs, where we tell the kernel
# not to tell gdb about `pass' signals). So the fix would appear to
# be to just yank that one breakpoint when we step over it.
and here's the new comment:
# This doesn't work correctly on platforms with hardware single
# step...
The test does pass on systems with working h/w single-step. Can we fix
the comment?
My analysis does not explain why it passes on S/390, or on PPC. If you
want to, then remove the PPC kfail.
More anaysis and tests are needed here:
- something to cover "next" (next is different to continue)
- something to explain why i386 (what other systems did you test this
on?) fails the continue (decr pc after break?)
can we do that?
Andrew