This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [commit 7.6.1 only] [patch gdbserver 7.6.1 only] Fix fd leak regression
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 15:39:12 +0100
- Subject: Re: [commit 7.6.1 only] [patch gdbserver 7.6.1 only] Fix fd leak regression
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20130829111053 dot GA25662 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <521F3B71 dot 1010007 at redhat dot com> <20130829130359 dot GA31063 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <521F5804 dot 1080604 at redhat dot com> <20130829142719 dot GA4036 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net>
On 08/29/2013 03:27 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2013 16:17:40 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> +set test "system fd behavior is known"
>>> +set status [remote_exec target "[standard_output_file $testfile]"]
>>> +if { [lindex $status 0] == 0 } {
>>> + pass $test
>>> +} else {
>>> + fail $test
>>> +}
>>> +remote_exec target "ls -l /proc/self/fd/"
>>
>> Before gdbserver's fix, do we get one extra fd from the dejagnu
>> leak, and another extra from gdbserver's leak? What if we made
>> $testfile count open fds, and then compare that between running
>> under gdb/gdbserver and just under remote_exec ?
>
> BTW not sure if it is clear
It wasn't at first, but I figured it out when I noticed it had
no ChangeLog entry.
> but this gdb/testsuite/ part was sent
> accidentally, there is even written no real test and I have not checked in
> anything as I got stuck on the DejaGNU bug.
Understood. I was suggesting a possible way to not need to
wait for the dejagnu bug to be fixed. If what I suggested actually
works, I don't see a downside -- we'd just be checking whether
gdbserver itself introduces any leak, which is all we should
care about?
>
> I have sent a bugreport to <bug-dejagnu@gnu.org> and it got processed today
> although the mail has not yet appeared in the archive:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-dejagnu/
>
> I hope DejaGNU gets fixed soon so the testcase can be later written as
> UNSUPPORTED (UNTESTED?) with buggy DejaGNU.
Ack.
--
Pedro Alves