This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: FAIL: gdb.base/nextoverexit.exp: next over exit (the program exited)
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Yue Lu <hacklu dot newborn at gmail dot com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, Luis Machado <lgustavo at codesourcery dot com>, bug-hurd at gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 09:44:34 +0100
- Subject: Re: FAIL: gdb.base/nextoverexit.exp: next over exit (the program exited)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAB8fV=jJ64i91VW52ZmdnEDZhd1ZGTAykDqoFyPJanCP=5beqA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAB8fV=iw783uGF8sWyqJNcWR0j_jaY5XO+FR3TyPatMGJ8Fdjw at mail dot gmail dot com> <87txi2i6t6 dot fsf at kepler dot schwinge dot homeip dot net> <5225C3C6 dot 8090101 at redhat dot com> <CAB8fV=gXmHSqLF14aF3RUU6paExSHft-gqySCsvyxiYELY4V+A at mail dot gmail dot com> <5228DBA7 dot 9050408 at redhat dot com> <522A2497 dot 7090405 at redhat dot com> <CAB8fV=hcYutwy7KzeJyELziBaKZio0G9ZFX=FucRWav-T2_cnA at mail dot gmail dot com> <52399E7F dot 40304 at redhat dot com> <CAB8fV=i90kf3Eng9aQWb=JV+R6vPm4Bj5B3aq3X5HHzxVKbLwA at mail dot gmail dot com> <87k3id1aeb dot fsf at kepler dot schwinge dot homeip dot net>
On 09/19/2013 09:30 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 15:40:40 +0800, Yue Lu <hacklu.newborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 09/12/2013 04:05 AM, Yue Lu wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-09/msg00253.html
>
>> First thank you to tell me how to apply patch from email. I used
>> webmail of gmail and directly copy patch from the email which often
>> apply failed, then I had to patch line by line. Now I used mutt to
>> save email to mbox file then apply it, life changed! Before you told
>> me this, I never imaged this, so thanks!
>
> Well, never assume that we'd use any convoluted procedures, such as
> manually copying a patch's text. ;-) Never hesitate to ask if you think
> some process is too complicated to be done manually -- there will always
> be someone who is happy to tell you about his creative solution.
>
>> I have test your patch, seems need a tiny fix. This is just a spelling
>> mistaken I think.
>
> Right; I had come to the same conclusion, see my message in the other
> thread.
>
>
>> After add this change, the gdb can work. But I have found a little
>> strange from the origin gdb.
>> When I set a breakpoint, then I run the inferior, after hit the
>> breakpoint, I just input next next until the inferior exit, then the
>> gdb will complain this:
>> [Inferior 1 (bogus thread id 0) exited normally]
>> Thread-specific breakpoint -37 deleted - thread 4 is gone.
>> Thread-specific breakpoint -38 deleted - thread 4 is gone.
>> Thread-specific breakpoint -39 deleted - thread 4 is gone.
>> Thread-specific breakpoint 0 deleted - thread 4 is gone.
>>
>> I am not sure why this will output or is reasonable.
>>
>> I got this output like this:
>> $./gdb gdb
>> $b main
>> $r
>> $n
>> $n
>> ...
>> $q (quit the debugged gdb)
>
> "As of recently", I notice the same behavior for GDB on both x86
> GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd, also resulting in the gdb.base/nextoverexit.exp
> test failing. So, I don't think this is related to any Hurd
> patches/behavior, but instead a general issue.
>
> Quoting from the x86 GNU/Linux' gdb/testsuite/gdb.base2/gdb.log:
>
> Breakpoint 1, main () at ../../../Ferry_Tagscherer/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nextoverexit.c:21
> 21 exit (0);
> (gdb) next
> [Inferior 1 (process 25208) exited normally]
> Thread-specific breakpoint -5 deleted - thread 1 is gone.
> Thread-specific breakpoint -6 deleted - thread 1 is gone.
> Thread-specific breakpoint -7 deleted - thread 1 is gone.
> Thread-specific breakpoint 0 deleted - thread 1 is gone.
> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/nextoverexit.exp: next over exit (the program exited)
>
> Can others confirm this/is this a known issue?
Hmm, that message is new, but we shouldn't be seeing it for
internal breakpoints... That'll be my fault. I'll take a look.
--
Pedro Alves