This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com 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 Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:59:30PM -0500, Jeff Johnston wrote:
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:04:00PM -0500, Jeff Johnston wrote:
Ok, I had the thread checks in the Continue test. If I change it to the way above, now I get 3 "Process no longer exists "messages but the test completes. :(
I'm really starting to hate these test macros. What is the reasoning behind avoiding send_gdb / gdb_expect?
They don't automatically handle things like internal errors, disconnects, et cetera. Want to post your current version and I'll give it a try?
-re "Program received signal SIGINT.*$gdb_prompt $" { pass "$message" }
Nothing automatically sets $message. The ERROR: you saw is DejaGNU's generic failure message for things like syntax errors in expect blocks; I sent a patch to the dejagnu list a month or so ago to print more helpful information. Try the attached script instead.
Oddly, running a fixed manythreads.exp with an unpatched GDB, I get a SIGSEGV in pthread_join. It shows up as a FAIL (yay). The patched GDB shows up as nine PASSes (yay). Re-running it a number of times, the SIGSEGV came and went intermittently.
Running the test with LinuxThreads an internal error (lp->status == 0 assertion failed) came and went also.
I guess that makes it a good test.... now someone will have to _fix_ those.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |