From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 83054 invoked by alias); 9 Oct 2018 13:52:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 82999 invoked by uid 89); 9 Oct 2018 13:51:59 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_1,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=batch X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Oct 2018 13:51:58 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A08730917A1; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:51:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blade.nx (ovpn-117-250.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.117.250]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 184A85B2C8; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 13:51:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blade.nx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4B671803E602; Tue, 9 Oct 2018 14:51:56 +0100 (BST) Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2018 13:52:00 -0000 From: Gary Benson To: Tom de Vries Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves Subject: Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Rewrite catch-follow-exec.exp Message-ID: <20181009135155.GB12668@blade.nx> References: <20181005101122.GA23867@delia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20181005101122.GA23867@delia> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2018-10/txt/msg00211.txt.bz2 Tom de Vries wrote: > append FLAGS " \"$binfile\"" > append FLAGS " -batch" > + append FLAGS " -ex \"target native\"" > append FLAGS " -ex \"catch exec\"" > append FLAGS " -ex \"set follow-exec-mode new\"" I'm a little confused with this part, doesn't this force the test to run on the host? > + # We're not testing the "status returned by the spawned process", > + # because it's currently one, and we suspect it will be zero after > + # fixing PR23368 - "gdb goes to into background when hitting exec > + # catchpoint with follow-exec-mode new" > + #gdb_assert { [lindex $result 3] == 0 } I'm not sure we should commit commented-out code. Why not have the test assert { [lindex $result 3] == 1 } if that's what's happening now, with the comment reworded to indicate that it might need changing to zero when PR23368 is fixed. That way, when PR23368 *is* fixed, whoever's fixing it gets a failing test, they investigate, find the comment, and update it as part of their series. Everything else looks good. Cheers, Gary