[PATCH 0/3] Fix gdb.gdb/python-helper.exp + cleanups

[Simon Marchi]

On 2022-09-26 14:39, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 9/26/22 20:01, Simon Marchi wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2022-09-23 17:35, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>> On 9/23/22 19:02, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>>> On 9/23/22 15:17, Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>>>> My patches that touched TYPE_LENGTH and TYPE_TARGET_TYPE caused
>>>>> regressions in gdb.gdb/python-helper.exp.  I forgot to update
>>>>> gdb-gdb.py.in, as always.
>>>>>
>>>>> It looks like my CI doesn't run the test properly.  Because inserting the
>>>>> first breakpoint times out, do_self_tests skips the test.  I also had
>>>>> troubles running the test locally due to these timeouts.  So the first
>>>>> two patches address problems related to that, and the third one is the
>>>>> actual fix.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simon Marchi (3):
>>>>>     gdb/testsuite: bump duration for the whole test in do_self_tests
>>>>>     gdb/testsuite: use gdb_test in gdb.gdb/python-helper.exp
>>>>>     gdb/testsuite: update field names in gdb-gdb.py.in
>>>>>
>>>>>    gdb/gdb-gdb.py.in                       |  4 +-
>>>>>    gdb/testsuite/gdb.gdb/python-helper.exp | 88 +++++--------------------
>>>>>    gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp               |  8 +--
>>>>>    gdb/testsuite/lib/selftest-support.exp  | 36 +++-------
>>>>>    4 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 105 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> base-commit: 8e037eae6823caf5b9cb5b4feb3de838abb25956
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the series. I tested this on my end and it seems to work nicely.
>>>>
>>>> The only hiccup I noticed is when GDB runs into a SIGSEGV due to the guile
>>>> interpreter hitting GC_find_limit_with_bound. I'm not sure why this happens. Maybe
>>>> it is a problem with guile and armhf.
>>>
>>> It's documented behaviour of libgc1, see
>>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29325 .
>>
>> Ack, this is an orthogonal issue (and for some reason I don't see it on
>> my Arch Linux, but I have certainly seen it elsewhere).
>>
>> Just to confirm, does the series look good to you too Tom?
>>
> 
> Hi Simon,
> 
> it does, yes, thanks.
> 
> I did wonder a bit about the first patch, where we remove the whole bit about the 5 minute timeout, but after thinking a bit on this I realized that setting absolute timeouts like that are likely to be inaccurate, so replacing it with a relative one (timeout factor) is better.  The quoted example is likely to have an in increased timeout in the board settings anyway, so that could partially take care of the drop in timeout from 5m (600s) to 10 (timeout factor) * 10s (100s).

Yeah, that was my thinking: if it's a slow board, it will have some
increased timeout already, and that will be multiplied by 10.  This is
better than one hard-coded value added 20 years ago for some specific
board.

> Anyway, I tested the series and it takes care of the regression for me.

Thanks, will push.

Simon