Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Rewrite catch-follow-exec.exp

[Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>]

On 10/9/18 3:51 PM, Gary Benson wrote:
> 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?
> 

Hi,

thanks for the review.

The "target native" was an attempt to fix problems when running with
--target_board=native-gdbserver. Perhaps it's better to bail out in that
case, but I haven't yet figured out how to. Any advice here?

>> +	    # 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.
> 

Makes sense, will do.

Thanks,
- Tom