[patch] Handle absent "/usr/sbin/" in prelink error output.

Doug Evans dje@google.com
Tue Nov 16 22:44:00 GMT 2010


On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Jan Kratochvil
<jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:23:35 +0100, Doug Evans wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
>> > --- lib/prelink-support.exp     12 Oct 2010 18:12:49 -0000      1.3
>> > +++ lib/prelink-support.exp     16 Nov 2010 21:06:58 -0000
>> > @@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ proc prelink_no {arg {name {}}} {
>> >     }
>> >     # Last line does miss the trailing \n.  There can be multiple such messages
>> >     # as ARG may list multiple files.
>> > -    if {$result == 1 && [regexp {^(/usr/sbin/prelink[^\r\n]*: [^ ]* does not have .gnu.prelink_undo section\n?)*$} $output]} {
>> > +    if {$result == 1 && [regexp {^((/usr/sbin/)?prelink[^\r\n]*: [^ ]* does not have .gnu.prelink_undo section\n?)*$} $output]} {
>> >        pass $test
>> >        return 1
>> >     } else {
>> >
>>
>> Well, this shouldn't have caused a regression, but break-interp.exp
>> breaks badly with it.
>> So there's a deeper bug here.  Blech.
>
> I do not have any of the problems reproducible on Fedora 14 x86_64 (which is
> understandable as the testcases were written on this platform).  I do not see
> why your proposed patch should break anything.
>
> But speaking specifically about gdb.base/attach-pie-misread.exp I am free to
> drop it whole.  The problem is very difficult to reliably reproduce, various
> memory alignments must match to make the former problem reproducible.

Thanks for the offer to delete attach-pie-misread.exp.
I wouldn't delete it just yet, as I also have four failures in
break-interp.exp to fix too.  They're fixed with the above patch, but
then many more failures are introduced.

I'm wondering if at least part of the problem is in prelink_{no,yes}.
Is it possible for them to return zero (i.e. "fail") but not trigger a
test failure?  e.g. is there a conflation of "feature is present but
not working" with "feature is not present"?  Dunno, just a wild guess
at this point.



More information about the Gdb-patches mailing list