[patch] New thread test to exercise Daniel's Patch
Jeff Johnston
jjohnstn@redhat.com
Mon Mar 29 22:58:00 GMT 2004
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:59:30PM -0500, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>
>>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:04:00PM -0500, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Ok, I had the thread checks in the Continue test. If I change it to the
>>>>way above, now I get 3 "Process no longer exists "messages but the test
>>>>completes. :(
>>>>
>>>>I'm really starting to hate these test macros. What is the reasoning
>>>>behind avoiding send_gdb / gdb_expect?
>>>
>>>
>>>They don't automatically handle things like internal errors,
>>>disconnects, et cetera. Want to post your current version and I'll
>>>give it a try?
>>>
>
>
>> -re "Program received signal SIGINT.*$gdb_prompt $"
>> {
>> pass "$message"
>> }
>
>
> Nothing automatically sets $message. The ERROR: you saw is DejaGNU's
> generic failure message for things like syntax errors in expect blocks;
> I sent a patch to the dejagnu list a month or so ago to print more
> helpful information. Try the attached script instead.
>
Thanks for restoring my sanity. I got mixed up by the fact that the
gdb_test_multiple macro uses $message inside itself based on the passed
argument. I thought the conditions I specify would be able to use the same
variable.
It runs successfully for me on my RHEL3 system.
> Oddly, running a fixed manythreads.exp with an unpatched GDB, I get a
> SIGSEGV in pthread_join. It shows up as a FAIL (yay). The patched GDB
> shows up as nine PASSes (yay). Re-running it a number of times, the
> SIGSEGV came and went intermittently.
>
> Running the test with LinuxThreads an internal error (lp->status == 0
> assertion failed) came and went also.
>
> I guess that makes it a good test.... now someone will have to _fix_
> those.
>
Do I resubmit the patched test or has it been approved?
-- Jeff J.
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list