Re: Unbreaking gdb on Solaris post-multitarget [PR 25939]

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 6/19/20 1:36 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
>> On 6/18/20 3:55 PM, Pedro Alves via Gdb-patches wrote:

>> Your push_target fix is still necessary, FAOD.
> 
> Should I push it as is (with an appropriate description, of course) or
> would the code change need a comment, too?

It's fine without a comment.  I think you can remove the 
push_target call from procfs_init_inferior at the same time,
too, as that one becomes unnecessary.  Basically make the fix be
about moving the push_target call earlier.

> 
>> Could you give it a try?
> 
> I did so now, both on amd64-pc-solaris2.11 (Solaris 11.4), and
> sparcv9-sun-solaris2.11 (Solaris 11.3, gcc211 above).  
> 
> gdb basically works again, but compared to the pre-multi-target results
> I have still a considerable number of regressions:
> 
> before:
> 
> # of expected passes            62928
> # of unexpected failures        1841
> # of unexpected successes       4
> # of expected failures          49
> # of unknown successes          6
> 
> now:
> 
> # of expected passes            63768
> # of unexpected failures        2411
> # of expected failures          52
> # of unknown successes          1
> 
> Of course there's months of gdb development between the two, but e.g. I

Yeah, may not be regressions, but new FAILs instead.  The number of
expected passes is up too.

> Some of those are definitively regressions, although it's difficult to
> say with the flaky nature of several tests on Solaris.
> 
> Whatever the case, it looks like I have months of work ahead ;-)
> 
> Thanks a lot for fixing this.

You're welcome.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves