Re: [PATCH 1/2] Add dprintf and detach test (PR breakpoints/17012)

[Simon Marchi <simon dot marchi at ericsson dot com>]

On 14-07-07 11:06 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Hello Simon,
> 
>> 2014-06-18  Simon Marchi  simon.marchi@ericsson.com
>>
>> 	PR breakpoints/17012
>> 	gdb.base/dprintf-detach.c: New file.
>> 	gdb.base/dprintf-detach.exp: New file.
> 
> Sorry for the delay in answering this.
> 
>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/dprintf-detach.c b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/dprintf-detach.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..91f49ce
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/dprintf-detach.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
>> +#include <stdlib.h>
> 
> This file needs a copyright notice, please.

I checked a few other test files and they didn't have the copyright notice,
that's why I didn't add it. I have no problem adding it if it should be
there.

>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/dprintf-detach.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/dprintf-detach.exp
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..18ba154
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/dprintf-detach.exp
>> @@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
>> +#   Copyright 2003-2014 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> 
> Can you confirm that 2003 is the  correct year for the start
> of the range?

Oops, just 2014.

>> +
>> +# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>> +# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>> +# the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or
>> +# (at your option) any later version.
>> +#
>> +# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>> +# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>> +# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
>> +# GNU General Public License for more details.
>> +#
>> +# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
>> +# along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.  */
>> +
>> +# This test checks that inserting a dprintf and detaching does not crash
>> +# the program.
>> +#
>> +# Related bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17012
>> +
>> +# Only GNU/Linux is known to support (dprintf and detach).
>> +if { ! [istarget "*-*-linux*"] } {
>> +  return 0
>> +}
>> +
>> +# Are we on a target board?
>> +if [is_remote target] then {
>> +    return 0
>> +}
>> +
>> +standard_testfile
>> +set escapedbinfile  [string_to_regexp ${binfile}]
>> +
>> +if [prepare_for_testing "failed to prepare for dprintf-detach" \
>> +    ${testfile} ${srcfile} {debug}] {
>> +    return -1
>> +}
>> +
>> +# The problem was showing up in non-stop mode, since it enables
>> +# "breakpoint always-inserted", so this could also be
>> +# "set breakpoint always-inserted on".
>> +gdb_test_no_output "set non-stop on"
>> +
>> +if ![runto_main] {
>> +    fail "Can't run to main"
>> +    return -1
>> +}
>> +
>> +# Get PID of test program.
>> +set inferior_pid -1
>> +set test "get inferior process ID"
>> +gdb_test_multiple "call getpid ()" $test {
>> +    -re ".* = ($decimal).*$gdb_prompt $" {
>> +	set inferior_pid $expect_out(1,string)
>> +	pass $test
>> +    }
>> +}
>> +
>> +# Add a dprintf and detach.
>> +gdb_test "dprintf function, \"hello\"" "Dprintf .*" "dprintf insertion"
>> +gdb_test "detach" "Detaching from program: .*$escapedbinfile, .*" "detach program"
>> +
>> +# Exit gdb. Until we do that, the process will exist as a zombie.
> 
> Two spaces after the period.
> 
>> +gdb_exit
>> +
>> +# Give some time for the ex-inferior to run and hopefully not crash.
>> +sleep 1
>> +
>> +# Check that the process still exists.
>> +set test "detached process should continue to exist"
>> +if {[catch {exec kill -0 $inferior_pid}]} {
>> +	# Process does not exist.
>> +	fail "$test"
>> +} else {
>> +	# Process exists.
>> +	pass "$test"
>> +}
>> +
>> +# Clean up.
>> +catch {exec kill -9 $inferior_pid}
> 
> I am not quite sure about how well how the above would work in practice.
> How about restarting GDB, and do an "attach" gdb_test? That  way, we
> can  kill the inferior process from GDB as well. (it's a good thing
> you used a 30-times loops as well  to make sure the process eventually
> terminates on its own as well).

It "works", as in "it runs fine on my machine". Your suggestion to attach the
process with a new gdb seems more portable, as it doesn't rely on kill. I will
try to make a version based on that.