From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 865CE3853D5D for ; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 14:12:13 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 865CE3853D5D Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=polymtl.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=polymtl.ca Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 2ANEC2Eh002515 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 23 Nov 2022 09:12:06 -0500 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 2ANEC2Eh002515 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=polymtl.ca; s=default; t=1669212727; bh=Q2PdYUojvg1+TiCU04e/jmEfz771x2pTPXpVv7hTAeA=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=FvIXMJLx5dIgsxOPIyRkbpedqbd/BYOpN1kE/RPqEmMveUqDAfgN67o3aBiLd3o4J gI0Mx5VvLy3Zx2TGGC7jogNZUoJqj4AzoV6t3pgWHEXvqc7mWCF4Pcj4QHx2kglemm H2jd8oQKTbEe8fSOUN/TihMXliq0xdeZOROc8RvA= Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [217.28.27.60]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D8D4A1E11E; Wed, 23 Nov 2022 09:12:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3b11b8a8-c062-84ef-3e79-a1b9d8a1e5be@polymtl.ca> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 09:12:00 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.4.2 Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3a_=5bPATCH_1/2=5d_gdb/testsuite=3a_make_gdb=5ftest=5f?= =?UTF-8?Q?multiple_return_immediately_if=c2=a0send=5fgdb_fails?= Content-Language: en-US To: Philippe Waroquiers , Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20221122155546.599061-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com> <6460c6b9c161ee2d17edaa8ce0ed78af3cc3dbaf.camel@skynet.be> From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: <6460c6b9c161ee2d17edaa8ce0ed78af3cc3dbaf.camel@skynet.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Wed, 23 Nov 2022 14:12:02 +0000 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3032.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 11/23/22 05:59, Philippe Waroquiers wrote: > Thanks for this, it will for sure help me in the future to not miss anymore > some regressions I introduce. > > One small question: > Is a GDB crash the only reason for which we could have a message such as: > Couldn't send python print(objfile.filename) to GDB. > ? > Possibly better then to indicate that GDB crashed (on an internal error) ? > Or if there are some other reasons, it might be good to give more details about the > reason ? If send_gdb fails, it's generally because the underlying send (the expect proc) has failed, because GDB's spawn id is no longer valid. And that is normally due to a crash. But the reality is that we do not know for sure, it could also be a testsuite problem, where we closed GDB and failed to reinitialize $gdb_spawn_id. So saying GDB crashed could also give you a wrong lead. I prefer to stick with what we know. > Note that if this is not straightforward to do, not a big deal > as just making the problem visible with UNRESOLVED should draw the attention > and the detailed log will show the crash I guess. I think that's the important part, it's the previous command that caused the crash, that one should show up in the logs. Looking at lib/gdb.exp there are many more uses of gdb_expect that could be converted to gdb_test_multiple. Simon