* [PATCH v3] Introduce remote_target_is_gdbserver
@ 2014-09-11 14:54 Simon Marchi
2014-09-11 15:57 ` Doug Evans
2014-09-11 16:10 ` Luis Machado
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Simon Marchi @ 2014-09-11 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches; +Cc: Simon Marchi
This patch introduces a function in gdbserver-support.exp to find out
whether the current target is GDBserver.
The code was inspired from gdb.trace/qtor.exp, so it replaces the code
there by a call to the new function.
New in v3:
- Remove useless "pass" in remote_target_is_gdbserver.
- Coding style in qtro.exp (braces in condition).
- Changelog entry about qtro.exp.
gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gdb.trace/qtro.exp: Replace gdbserver detection code by...
* lib/gdbserver-support.exp (remote_target_is_gdbserver): New
function.
---
gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/qtro.exp | 14 +-------------
gdb/testsuite/lib/gdbserver-support.exp | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/qtro.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/qtro.exp
index 22b5051..700c157 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/qtro.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/qtro.exp
@@ -98,19 +98,7 @@ if { $traceframe_info_supported == -1 } {
}
# Check whether we're testing with our own GDBserver.
-set is_gdbserver -1
-set test "probe for GDBserver"
-gdb_test_multiple "monitor help" $test {
- -re "The following monitor commands are supported.*debug-hw-points.*remote-debug.*GDBserver.*$gdb_prompt $" {
- set is_gdbserver 1
- pass $test
- }
- -re "$gdb_prompt $" {
- set is_gdbserver 0
- pass $test
- }
-}
-if { $is_gdbserver == -1 } {
+if { ![remote_target_is_gdbserver] } {
return -1
}
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdbserver-support.exp b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdbserver-support.exp
index 026a937..423c729 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdbserver-support.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdbserver-support.exp
@@ -436,3 +436,21 @@ proc mi_gdbserver_start_multi { } {
return [mi_gdb_target_cmd $gdbserver_protocol $gdbserver_gdbport]
}
+
+# Return true if the current remote target is an instance of gdbserver.
+
+proc remote_target_is_gdbserver { } {
+ global gdb_prompt
+
+ set is_gdbserver 0
+ set test "Probing for GDBserver"
+
+ gdb_test_multiple "monitor help" $test {
+ -re "The following monitor commands are supported.*Quit GDBserver.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+ set is_gdbserver 1
+ }
+ -re "$gdb_prompt $" {
+ }
+ }
+ return $is_gdbserver
+}
--
2.1.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] Introduce remote_target_is_gdbserver
2014-09-11 14:54 [PATCH v3] Introduce remote_target_is_gdbserver Simon Marchi
@ 2014-09-11 15:57 ` Doug Evans
2014-09-11 19:26 ` Simon Marchi
2014-09-11 16:10 ` Luis Machado
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Doug Evans @ 2014-09-11 15:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Marchi; +Cc: gdb-patches
Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@ericsson.com> writes:
> This patch introduces a function in gdbserver-support.exp to find out
> whether the current target is GDBserver.
>
> The code was inspired from gdb.trace/qtor.exp, so it replaces the code
> there by a call to the new function.
>
> New in v3:
> - Remove useless "pass" in remote_target_is_gdbserver.
> - Coding style in qtro.exp (braces in condition).
> - Changelog entry about qtro.exp.
>
> gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gdb.trace/qtro.exp: Replace gdbserver detection code by...
> * lib/gdbserver-support.exp (remote_target_is_gdbserver): New
> function.
> ---
> gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/qtro.exp | 14 +-------------
> gdb/testsuite/lib/gdbserver-support.exp | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/qtro.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/qtro.exp
> index 22b5051..700c157 100644
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/qtro.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/qtro.exp
> @@ -98,19 +98,7 @@ if { $traceframe_info_supported == -1 } {
> }
>
> # Check whether we're testing with our own GDBserver.
> -set is_gdbserver -1
> -set test "probe for GDBserver"
> -gdb_test_multiple "monitor help" $test {
> - -re "The following monitor commands are supported.*debug-hw-points.*remote-debug.*GDBserver.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> - set is_gdbserver 1
> - pass $test
> - }
> - -re "$gdb_prompt $" {
> - set is_gdbserver 0
> - pass $test
> - }
> -}
> -if { $is_gdbserver == -1 } {
> +if { ![remote_target_is_gdbserver] } {
> return -1
> }
>
> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdbserver-support.exp b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdbserver-support.exp
> index 026a937..423c729 100644
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdbserver-support.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdbserver-support.exp
> @@ -436,3 +436,21 @@ proc mi_gdbserver_start_multi { } {
>
> return [mi_gdb_target_cmd $gdbserver_protocol $gdbserver_gdbport]
> }
> +
> +# Return true if the current remote target is an instance of gdbserver.
> +
> +proc remote_target_is_gdbserver { } {
> + global gdb_prompt
> +
> + set is_gdbserver 0
> + set test "Probing for GDBserver"
> +
> + gdb_test_multiple "monitor help" $test {
> + -re "The following monitor commands are supported.*Quit GDBserver.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> + set is_gdbserver 1
> + }
> + -re "$gdb_prompt $" {
> + }
> + }
> + return $is_gdbserver
> +}
Hi.
The original code allowed for a -1 value of is_gdbserver
to handle the case of "can't tell" (e.g. for a timeout or
whatever, IIUC).
While IWBN to not complicate the API of
remote_target_is_gdbserver by requiring the caller
to have to handle this, maybe it'd be best if the caller
did have to watch for -1 and not just assume "not gdbserver":
maybe a different test will want to handle all three cases
(can't-tell, no, or yes).
E.g., initialize is_gdbserver to -1, and watch for a -1 value
before returning.
proc remote_target_is_gdbserver { } {
global gdb_prompt
set is_gdbserver -1
set test "Probing for GDBserver"
gdb_test_multiple "monitor help" $test {
-re "The following monitor commands are supported.*Quit GDBserver.*$gdb_prompt $" {
set is_gdbserver 1
}
-re "$gdb_prompt $" {
set is_gdbserver 0
}
}
if { $is_gdbserver == -1 } {
verbose -log "can't tell if using gdbserver or not" # or whatever
set $is_gdbserver 0 # <<<< this part I'm not sure about
}
return $is_gdbserver
Also, I see an earlier version of the patch first
did a check for [is_remote_target] before calling
target_is_gdbserver, and the new version of the
patch changes that to just calling remote_target_is_gdbserver.
Since the function remote_target_is_gdbserver can
be used regardless of whether the target is remote,
let's remove "remote_" from the name.
ie., go back to target_is_gdbserver.
Hmmm, another thought.
Since this requires an exchange with the target,
IWBN to cache the result.
There's support for doing this in the harness,
grep for gdb_caching_proc.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] Introduce remote_target_is_gdbserver
2014-09-11 14:54 [PATCH v3] Introduce remote_target_is_gdbserver Simon Marchi
2014-09-11 15:57 ` Doug Evans
@ 2014-09-11 16:10 ` Luis Machado
2014-09-11 19:33 ` Simon Marchi
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2014-09-11 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Marchi, gdb-patches
On 09/11/2014 11:54 AM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> This patch introduces a function in gdbserver-support.exp to find out
> whether the current target is GDBserver.
>
> The code was inspired from gdb.trace/qtor.exp, so it replaces the code
> there by a call to the new function.
>
> New in v3:
> - Remove useless "pass" in remote_target_is_gdbserver.
> - Coding style in qtro.exp (braces in condition).
> - Changelog entry about qtro.exp.
>
> gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>
> * gdb.trace/qtro.exp: Replace gdbserver detection code by...
> * lib/gdbserver-support.exp (remote_target_is_gdbserver): New
> function.
> ---
> gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/qtro.exp | 14 +-------------
> gdb/testsuite/lib/gdbserver-support.exp | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/qtro.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/qtro.exp
> index 22b5051..700c157 100644
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/qtro.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/qtro.exp
> @@ -98,19 +98,7 @@ if { $traceframe_info_supported == -1 } {
> }
>
> # Check whether we're testing with our own GDBserver.
> -set is_gdbserver -1
> -set test "probe for GDBserver"
> -gdb_test_multiple "monitor help" $test {
> - -re "The following monitor commands are supported.*debug-hw-points.*remote-debug.*GDBserver.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> - set is_gdbserver 1
> - pass $test
> - }
> - -re "$gdb_prompt $" {
> - set is_gdbserver 0
> - pass $test
> - }
> -}
> -if { $is_gdbserver == -1 } {
> +if { ![remote_target_is_gdbserver] } {
> return -1
> }
>
> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdbserver-support.exp b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdbserver-support.exp
> index 026a937..423c729 100644
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdbserver-support.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdbserver-support.exp
> @@ -436,3 +436,21 @@ proc mi_gdbserver_start_multi { } {
>
> return [mi_gdb_target_cmd $gdbserver_protocol $gdbserver_gdbport]
> }
> +
> +# Return true if the current remote target is an instance of gdbserver.
> +
> +proc remote_target_is_gdbserver { } {
> + global gdb_prompt
> +
> + set is_gdbserver 0
> + set test "Probing for GDBserver"
> +
> + gdb_test_multiple "monitor help" $test {
> + -re "The following monitor commands are supported.*Quit GDBserver.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> + set is_gdbserver 1
> + }
> + -re "$gdb_prompt $" {
> + }
> + }
> + return $is_gdbserver
> +}
>
Just a thought but... is there a specific reason we need to check for
gdbserver explicitly as opposed to checking for a remote debugging stub
feature?
It sounds more appropriate to leave remote stub-based testing as generic
as possible, in which case "is_gdbserver" wouldn't be needed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] Introduce remote_target_is_gdbserver
2014-09-11 15:57 ` Doug Evans
@ 2014-09-11 19:26 ` Simon Marchi
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Simon Marchi @ 2014-09-11 19:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Doug Evans; +Cc: gdb-patches
On 14-09-11 11:56 AM, Doug Evans wrote:
> Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@ericsson.com> writes:
>> This patch introduces a function in gdbserver-support.exp to find out
>> whether the current target is GDBserver.
>>
>> The code was inspired from gdb.trace/qtor.exp, so it replaces the code
>> there by a call to the new function.
>>
>> New in v3:
>> - Remove useless "pass" in remote_target_is_gdbserver.
>> - Coding style in qtro.exp (braces in condition).
>> - Changelog entry about qtro.exp.
>>
>> gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>
>> * gdb.trace/qtro.exp: Replace gdbserver detection code by...
>> * lib/gdbserver-support.exp (remote_target_is_gdbserver): New
>> function.
>> ---
>> gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/qtro.exp | 14 +-------------
>> gdb/testsuite/lib/gdbserver-support.exp | 18 ++++++++++++++++++
>> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/qtro.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/qtro.exp
>> index 22b5051..700c157 100644
>> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/qtro.exp
>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.trace/qtro.exp
>> @@ -98,19 +98,7 @@ if { $traceframe_info_supported == -1 } {
>> }
>>
>> # Check whether we're testing with our own GDBserver.
>> -set is_gdbserver -1
>> -set test "probe for GDBserver"
>> -gdb_test_multiple "monitor help" $test {
>> - -re "The following monitor commands are supported.*debug-hw-points.*remote-debug.*GDBserver.*$gdb_prompt $" {
>> - set is_gdbserver 1
>> - pass $test
>> - }
>> - -re "$gdb_prompt $" {
>> - set is_gdbserver 0
>> - pass $test
>> - }
>> -}
>> -if { $is_gdbserver == -1 } {
>> +if { ![remote_target_is_gdbserver] } {
>> return -1
>> }
>>
>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdbserver-support.exp b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdbserver-support.exp
>> index 026a937..423c729 100644
>> --- a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdbserver-support.exp
>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdbserver-support.exp
>> @@ -436,3 +436,21 @@ proc mi_gdbserver_start_multi { } {
>>
>> return [mi_gdb_target_cmd $gdbserver_protocol $gdbserver_gdbport]
>> }
>> +
>> +# Return true if the current remote target is an instance of gdbserver.
>> +
>> +proc remote_target_is_gdbserver { } {
>> + global gdb_prompt
>> +
>> + set is_gdbserver 0
>> + set test "Probing for GDBserver"
>> +
>> + gdb_test_multiple "monitor help" $test {
>> + -re "The following monitor commands are supported.*Quit GDBserver.*$gdb_prompt $" {
>> + set is_gdbserver 1
>> + }
>> + -re "$gdb_prompt $" {
>> + }
>> + }
>> + return $is_gdbserver
>> +}
>
> Hi.
>
> The original code allowed for a -1 value of is_gdbserver
> to handle the case of "can't tell" (e.g. for a timeout or
> whatever, IIUC).
> While IWBN to not complicate the API of
> remote_target_is_gdbserver by requiring the caller
> to have to handle this, maybe it'd be best if the caller
> did have to watch for -1 and not just assume "not gdbserver":
> maybe a different test will want to handle all three cases
> (can't-tell, no, or yes).
> E.g., initialize is_gdbserver to -1, and watch for a -1 value
> before returning.
>
> proc remote_target_is_gdbserver { } {
> global gdb_prompt
>
> set is_gdbserver -1
> set test "Probing for GDBserver"
>
> gdb_test_multiple "monitor help" $test {
> -re "The following monitor commands are supported.*Quit GDBserver.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> set is_gdbserver 1
> }
> -re "$gdb_prompt $" {
> set is_gdbserver 0
> }
> }
> if { $is_gdbserver == -1 } {
> verbose -log "can't tell if using gdbserver or not" # or whatever
> set $is_gdbserver 0 # <<<< this part I'm not sure about
> }
> return $is_gdbserver
I am confused. Do you want remote_target_is_gdbserver to return -1 in case of error, or not. The paragraph seems to say yes, but the code seems to say no.
> Also, I see an earlier version of the patch first
> did a check for [is_remote_target] before calling
> target_is_gdbserver, and the new version of the
> patch changes that to just calling remote_target_is_gdbserver.
> Since the function remote_target_is_gdbserver can
> be used regardless of whether the target is remote,
> let's remove "remote_" from the name.
> ie., go back to target_is_gdbserver.
Indeed, if the name is target_is_gdbserver, it would be clearer that you can call it in any situation, even if you are using native.
However, in that particular case, I removed the [is_remote target] check, since there is an equivalent one earlier in the test.
> Hmmm, another thought.
> Since this requires an exchange with the target,
> IWBN to cache the result.
> There's support for doing this in the harness,
> grep for gdb_caching_proc.
Interesting, I will check that.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] Introduce remote_target_is_gdbserver
2014-09-11 16:10 ` Luis Machado
@ 2014-09-11 19:33 ` Simon Marchi
2014-09-11 19:36 ` Luis Machado
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Simon Marchi @ 2014-09-11 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lgustavo, gdb-patches
> Just a thought but... is there a specific reason we need to check for
> gdbserver explicitly as opposed to checking for a remote debugging stub
> feature?
>
> It sounds more appropriate to leave remote stub-based testing as generic
> as possible, in which case "is_gdbserver" wouldn't be needed.
Good point, but I'd rather not address this in the current patch. I don't
want to change the test itself, but just make the check available to other
tests.
Ultimately, I want to use it in this patch [1] where I really want to check
for GDBserver. I want to KFAIL a test only when using gdbserver, due to a
known bug in gdbserver.
[1] https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-09/msg00148.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] Introduce remote_target_is_gdbserver
2014-09-11 19:33 ` Simon Marchi
@ 2014-09-11 19:36 ` Luis Machado
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2014-09-11 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Marchi, gdb-patches
On 09/11/2014 04:33 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>> Just a thought but... is there a specific reason we need to check for
>> gdbserver explicitly as opposed to checking for a remote debugging stub
>> feature?
>>
>> It sounds more appropriate to leave remote stub-based testing as generic
>> as possible, in which case "is_gdbserver" wouldn't be needed.
>
> Good point, but I'd rather not address this in the current patch. I don't
> want to change the test itself, but just make the check available to other
> tests.
>
Agreed. This may be something for the future. I don't want to create
more work for you.
> Ultimately, I want to use it in this patch [1] where I really want to check
> for GDBserver. I want to KFAIL a test only when using gdbserver, due to a
> known bug in gdbserver.
>
> [1] https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-09/msg00148.html
>
I see. Thanks for the explanation.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-09-11 19:36 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-09-11 14:54 [PATCH v3] Introduce remote_target_is_gdbserver Simon Marchi
2014-09-11 15:57 ` Doug Evans
2014-09-11 19:26 ` Simon Marchi
2014-09-11 16:10 ` Luis Machado
2014-09-11 19:33 ` Simon Marchi
2014-09-11 19:36 ` Luis Machado
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).