Re: Make TestBreakpoints deterministic

[Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org>]

Hi Andrew,

On Tue, 2006-08-22 at 11:11 -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 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.

We are talking about different tearDowns it seems.
The testcase has its own teardown in which will make sure the eventloop
is stopped (and before that it will now make sure the process is gone,
that is what the patch added).
And there is the TestLib.tearDown() which is called from the testcase
teardown, after the eventloop is properly stopped, and which mobs up any
other processes that might have been spawned.
 
> 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)?

I think we agree. The testcase now handles this case transparently
itself before TestLib.tearDown() is called (of course with the eventloop
gone). So TestLib doesn't have to change at all and can just rely on the
previous 'rules'.

Cheers,

Mark