Re: Make TestBreakpoints deterministic

[Andrew Cagney <cagney at redhat dot com>]

Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > and, unless I'm mistaken, that can only work if the event loop is still 
> > running in its own thread (you seem to think otherwise?)
> >     
>
> No, at that time the eventloop is running. Otherwise it wouldn't work as
> you said.
>
>   
Now I am confused, you previously wrote:

> The eventloop isn't running during teardown.

To re-iterate the relevant point from that part of the thread, tearDown 
must never rely on a running eventLoop - that may be part of what 
crashed.  Therefore the above is wrong.
> >                         public void terminated (int pid, boolean signal,
> >                                                 int value, boolean 
> > coreDumped)
> >                         {
> >                           children.remove(new Integer(pid));
> >                         }
> >                         public void disappeared (int pid, Throwable w)
> >                        {
> >                             detach (pid);
> >                             children.remove(new Integer(pid));
> >                         }
> >
> > notice how it is removing each child when it sees an exit event, yet 
> > here the child is going to generate two exit events.
> >     
>
> Right, but that is what we expect isn't it? Since we expect this process
> to give us 2 terminated events, one through ptrace/wait and one because
> it is a child.
>   
Actually, previously we expected nothing.   Most (all but one?) tests 
were running as demons - so the second event did not occur.   Your code 
changes those rules, should the code be adjusted (we certainly shouldn't 
be adding code reliant on the event loop)?

Andrew