Re: [PATCH v4 00/18] All-stop on top of non-stop

[Luis Machado <lgustavo at codesourcery dot com>]

On 08/12/2015 05:33 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> I tried to clarify the purpose of the testcase by adding a comment
> inside it. Let me know if this isn't enough, and we'll try to improve.
>
> > Ok. So i think i misunderstood the purpose of the testcase there. In reality
> > the testcase is not testing the fix itself, but rather introducing a new
> > test not related to the problem, except in the amd64 architecture, where it
> > really tests the problem.
> >
> > It just confused me that the test is generic for other non-amd64
> > architectures and specific to the amd64 problem you saw.
> >
> > I'd expect a generic solib test to be included in one of our shared library
> > tests, but then you'd have to shape it in a way that would exercise your
> > displaced stepping problem.
>
> I understand the first paragraph, but I'm having trouble with the last
> one. The testcase as I wrote it does exercise the issue being fixed
> on amd64, and I verified that I get 1 FAIL without the patch. Did
> I misunderstand you?

I was just pointing at the fact that we already have shared library 
tests, so those could be expanded to include this inter-dso call as 
opposed to having a different set of tests like your patch did. But 
you'd need to shape it in a way that exercises your amd64 failure mode then.

In any case, i'm good with the test. I just want to give it a try to be 
sure.