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
next prev parent 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).