On 10/20/2016 06:27 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 09:19 PM, Luis Machado wrote:
>
>> I was thinking of a way to test this and decided to exercise everything
>> against an invalid sysroot (by always passing 'set sysroot
>> <something_invalid>' and i noticed quite a few segmentation faults
>> ocurring in 10+ tests.
>>
>> Now we know things are broken and we know how to show that, but i'm
>> wondering if we want to re-run tests with an invalid sysroot or if the
>> manual testing with a sysroot override is enough.
>
> I think we should have some representative test that always runs,
> without requiring manual testing.
>
>>
>> I could add a loop to each test that is failing, but, though that
>> exercises and shows the failure, it sounds like a waste of time to
>> repeat those tests.
>
> Yeah.
>
>>
>> I could also pick one candidate and isolate that in a test, but i'm not
>> yet sure if all those 10+ failures fail for the same exact reason.
>>
>> Suggestions?
>
> I think it is sufficient to have one representative test for
> each reasons (or reasons).  Whether that is a new separate testcase
> or whether we reuse some existing testcase, I guess depends on how
> complicated the test needs to be.  If trivial, maybe go for separate,
> focused test.   If a lot of test set up is needed, e.g., to get the
> inferior to the state that triggers the bug), might make sense to
> reuse some existing testcase.
>
>
>>
>> These are the failing tests:
>>
>> gdb.base/catch-syscall.exp
>> gdb.base/execl-update-breakpoints.exp
>> gdb.base/foll-exec-mode.exp
>> gdb.base/foll-exec.exp
>> gdb.base/foll-vfork.exp
>> gdb.base/pie-execl.exp
>> gdb.linespec/explicit.exp
>> gdb.multi/bkpt-multi-exec.exp
>> gdb.python/py-finish-breakpoint.exp
>> gdb.threads/execl.exp
>> gdb.threads/non-ldr-exc-1.exp
>> gdb.threads/non-ldr-exc-2.exp
>> gdb.threads/non-ldr-exc-3.exp
>> gdb.threads/non-ldr-exc-4.exp
>> gdb.threads/thread-execl.exp
>
> The obvious pattern here is that these are tests that exec.  :-)
>

gdb.linespec/explicit.exp fails for an unrelated reason. It times out 
for me too, which is strange.

Anyway, i came up with a small test mostly copied from 
gdb.base/foll-exec.exp. It does only one test to make sure gdb survives 
the exec event with crashing.

I've confirmed it shows 1 FAIL without the attached patch and full 
passes with the patch applied.

How does the test (and patch) look now?