This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] testsuite: disable break-interp.exp for Arm buildbot
- From: Alan Hayward <Alan dot Hayward at arm dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, nd <nd at arm dot com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 15:53:16 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] testsuite: disable break-interp.exp for Arm buildbot
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=arm.com; dkim=pass header.d=arm.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=o3cYVoWfQKjNXoSKRA/3lJ/MRLRx19w3C9bY5R7/vuA=; b=cWomEKm53F5CXee2JRSvaBSrCoZIK4waFqzSnxTcZTAyIh+E2OGnFrMbnnkS3DttmuH3/mfW1dEknUqzdLzTIJ96w0oOZ2X7+gdfUVceAZzpq9UQCJs9EAYcWaxcgdRnonB9gKGpT05QTvmv1+v2kXHg/1e2ZaPQg/vGldhb6jgwuKvXz1Vj+oDGwaL/Jonau5Czt3JVBv1QQygDV1bfThK4ncV5HLL/Tfz2pwWdGHgUgxQtE/zPEYCIJF4qFEdkYNS1+6kSjBH0PcScOh4lEn7sSrWQJnXdL5r2YESiduHsV1E9H23RnA2Jwrpr44FKNR6FJ92XEv6Ah1M4Jn//HA==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=PzrrIo5wToTM1yokc/gWU9jjoTmNjenQgR2usTUDHTOwZ0uZTJi72J+Syc+Qq6DZs3ZBu3SAi2w8CEv6mqGesvgRK61X9Nkb3h44RUDShsUkwzrzd342ngE5SIUesr38bWCjEJwfVbyz7D7R88OqYDz5l8WNT4CLfJjLYp9lvdhSD48VnN/ClT5meqNGX3IQtBD7k5eWMFq95KZqI6vDf70ZHk6hTaCSZoyUAMAzImvxRAq4DpI7mpvBHrBFPOztrFk0zND6Igcf5ljG98XM/Ci/ZXHaXjWabmJGnU/gJz1gGoE/BXJFMUprKXzscROJqK5Lyrib1H2l/GOErIqCIQ==
- Original-authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=Alan dot Hayward at arm dot com;
- References: <20190809092128.94802-1-alan.hayward@arm.com> <abb5717f-91d5-7be0-2457-3f46de87324e@redhat.com>
> On 9 Aug 2019, at 18:22, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 8/9/19 10:21 AM, Alan Hayward wrote:
>
>> Use this test to disable gdb.base/break-interp.exp,
>
> I'd rather avoid completely skipping silently, since this way
> nobody will ever remember to enable it back.
>
>> as this test currently generates 132 sequential timeouts.
>
> So, in the general case, when something like that happens, it's better
> to make the testcase bail out earlier in response to one of the
> failures. Like, if we fail to run to a breakpoint or something, then
> there's no point in continuing the parts of the testcase that depend
> on running to that breakpoint.
>
> Is there some fundamental failures in each of the iterations of
> the test that we could detect to skip most of the tests in each of
> the iterations?
>
> From your mention of "fix stop on solib" not working, it sounds like the
> trouble is that when the testcase does "set stop-on-solib-events 1 + run",
> the inferior never stops and we time out. Can you make reach_1 detect it
> and bail out without waiting for a time out? Like, make the testcase
> put a breakpoint somewhere in case stop-on-solib-events fails to stop
> the inferior.
>
> That'd be better since it'd record the FAILs, and it would be target
> independent.
>
Agreed. It’s not quite that simple - the failures happen in cases where there
is no debug (eg BINprelinkNOdebugNOpieNO), so there is nowhere I can place
a breakpoint.
Maybe exit the test case if one of them times out? (I’m not keen on that either).
Alan.