This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 1/2] GDB test suite: Add helper for locating core files
- From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at redhat dot com>
- To: Andreas Arnez <arnez at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 01:17:33 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] GDB test suite: Add helper for locating core files
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- Authentication-results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
- Authentication-results: ext-mx08.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=kevinb at redhat dot com
- Dmarc-filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 5FD80C0587ED
- References: <1505760152-28775-1-git-send-email-arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1505760152-28775-2-git-send-email-arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20171007094545.1bba5c51@pinnacle.lan> <m31smcp3b6.fsf@oc1027705133.ibm.com>
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 20:46:21 +0200
Andreas Arnez <arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > Instead, several warnings are now printed instead:
> >
> > WARNING: Can not generate core dump on remote target.
>
> These warnings are newly introduced by the patch.
Yes, I saw that.
> They are meant to
> improve diagnostics when someone attempts to run the tests on a "real"
> remote target. I wanted to clearly document the fact that this is
> unsupported (and always was). Also, by documenting this restriction,
> maybe someone feels encouraged to lift it ;-)
In the distant past, I used to run the testsuite against resource
constrained linux machines often of a different architecture from the
host I was running the tests from. These machines would run gdbserver
built for that architecture.
Now, I don't recall whether corefile support in the testsuite actually
worked for those targets, but it at least seems possible due to the
various invocations of remote_exec which are present (prior to your
patch).
Do you think you could restore those calls to remote_exec in your
patch? Or do you know for a fact that they do not work?
Kevin