This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 20/10/15 13:15, Marcin KoÅcielnicki wrote:
On 20/10/15 13:07, Pedro Alves wrote:On 10/19/2015 06:17 PM, Marcin KoÅcielnicki wrote:Yeah, they're not covered by the testsuite. Actually, there seem to be only two tests in gdb.reverse suite that even touch syscalls: sigall-reverse (signal, sigprocmask, exit_group) and watch-reverse (read, write). No wonder that syscall handling is buggy... Stepping forward and backward over pipe/time/waitpid would indeed do the trick for patch #6.Can I convince you to add that to the patch (and likewise to others that might not be overly hard)?I'll do that, if I'm not overcome by dejaGNU... I have no idea how that stuff works at the moment.BTW, you'll also need to include ChangeLog entries. Please check here: https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/ContributionChecklistOK, will do.
Here comes v2: - ChangeLog entries added - I've split the last patch in two (termios and x32)- test cases are included that exercise #2 (getresuid), #5 (readmsg), #6 (time, waitpid, pipe), #8 (fstatat), #12 (readv); testing the rest would be rather contrived
Unfortunately, my waitpid test appears to trigger another bug - going over a fork with a breakpoint active while recording causes an error:
record-full.c:1716: internal-error: record_full_remove_breakpoint: removing unknown breakpoint
I'll try to debug this problem this weekend. Should I remove the waitpid test from this patchset for now, or mark it as an expected-fail somehow?
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |