public inbox for gdb-patches@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] New test case gdb.trace/signal.exp
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:04:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <570BAECD.30508@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <86a8l0leqy.fsf@gmail.com>

On 04/11/2016 09:40 AM, Yao Qi wrote:



> +# Record the hit times of each tracepoint in this array.
> +array set tracepoint_hits { }
> +
> +set test "tfind 0"
> +gdb_test_multiple $test $test {

Why do we need this separate "tfind 0" step?  I'd think the
"tfind" loop below would be sufficient?

> +    -re "Found trace frame 0, tracepoint ($decimal).*\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
> +
> +	set idx [expr $expect_out(1,string)]
> +
> +	if {[info exists tracepoint_hits($idx)]} {
> +	    incr tracepoint_hits($idx)
> +	} else {
> +	    set tracepoint_hits($idx) 1
> +	}
> +    }
> +}
> +
> +set loop 1
> +while { $loop } {
> +    set test "tfind"
> +    gdb_test_multiple $test $test {
> +	-re "Found trace frame $decimal, tracepoint ($decimal).*\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
> +	    set idx [expr $expect_out(1,string)]
> +
> +	    if {[info exists tracepoint_hits($idx)]} {
> +		incr tracepoint_hits($idx)
> +	    } else {
> +		set tracepoint_hits($idx) 1
> +	    }
> +	}
> +	-re "Target failed to find requested trace frame\..*\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
> +	    set loop 0
> +	}
> +    }

If this gdb_test_multiple FAILs or times out, the loop
will continue, over and over, forever.  So we need to reverse
the logic -- assume no looping, unless the "Found trace ..." regex matched.

I'd also suggest to preinitialize the array elements to 0, avoiding
the "info exists" calls in "Step 3", here:

> +# Step 3, check the number of collections on each tracepoint.
> +
> +for { set i $tpnum } { $i < [expr $tpnum + 2] } { incr i } {
> +    if {[info exists tracepoint_hits($i)]} {
> +	gdb_assert { $tracepoint_hits($i) == $iterations } \
> +	    "tracepoint $i hit $iterations times"
> +    } else {
> +	fail "can't find tracepoint $i hit"

Also, here I think it's nicer if PASS/FAIL messages are the same,
for test result diffing.

Thus, something like:

for { set i $tpnum } { $i < [expr $tpnum + 2] } { incr i } {
  set tracepoint_hits($idx) 0
}

while { 1 } {
   set test "tfind"
   set idx 0
   gdb_test_multiple $test $test {
	-re "Found trace frame $decimal, tracepoint ($decimal).*\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
	    set idx [expr $expect_out(1,string)]
	    incr tracepoint_hits($idx)
	}
   }
   if {$idx == 0} {
	break
   }
}

# Step 3, check the number of collections on each tracepoint.
for { set i $tpnum } { $i < [expr $tpnum + 2] } { incr i } {
   gdb_assert { $tracepoint_hits($i) == $iterations } \
      "tracepoint $i hit $iterations times"
}


Otherwise looks good to me.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves

  reply	other threads:[~2016-04-11 14:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-03-23 16:10 [PATCH 0/7 V2] Step over instruction branches to itself Yao Qi
2016-03-23 16:10 ` [PATCH 3/7] Force to insert software single step breakpoint Yao Qi
2016-04-11 14:31   ` Pedro Alves
2016-04-13 16:21     ` Yao Qi
2016-04-19 14:54     ` Yao Qi
2016-04-19 15:17       ` Pedro Alves
2016-04-20  7:50     ` Yao Qi
2016-04-22 16:36       ` Pedro Alves
2016-04-25  8:40         ` Yao Qi
2016-03-23 16:10 ` [PATCH 5/7] [GDBserver] Don't error in reinsert_raw_breakpoint if bp->inserted Yao Qi
2016-04-11 14:54   ` Pedro Alves
2016-03-23 16:10 ` [PATCH 1/7] New test case gdb.trace/signal.exp Yao Qi
2016-04-08 16:52   ` Pedro Alves
2016-04-11  8:41     ` Yao Qi
2016-04-11 14:04       ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2016-04-22 10:53         ` Yao Qi
2016-04-26 12:57           ` Pedro Alves
2016-04-11 14:08       ` Pedro Alves
2016-03-23 16:10 ` [PATCH 2/7] Deliver signal in hardware single step Yao Qi
2016-04-11 14:10   ` Pedro Alves
2016-04-22 10:54     ` Yao Qi
2016-03-23 16:10 ` [PATCH 4/7] Insert breakpoint even when the raw breakpoint is found Yao Qi
2016-04-11 14:41   ` Pedro Alves
2016-04-12  9:04     ` Yao Qi
2016-04-12  9:41       ` Pedro Alves
2016-04-25  8:45         ` Yao Qi
2016-03-23 16:10 ` [PATCH 6/7] Resume the inferior with signal rather than stepping over Yao Qi
2016-04-11 15:29   ` Pedro Alves
2016-03-23 16:26 ` [PATCH 7/7] New test case gdb.base/branch-to-self.exp Yao Qi
2016-04-11 15:34   ` Pedro Alves
2016-04-25  8:58     ` Yao Qi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=570BAECD.30508@redhat.com \
    --to=palves@redhat.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=qiyaoltc@gmail.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).