From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 744723870844 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 13:55:32 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 744723870844 Received: from mail-wm1-f71.google.com (mail-wm1-f71.google.com [209.85.128.71]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-80-CuPbhSe4NXGVn_B6erIZXg-1; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 09:55:30 -0400 X-MC-Unique: CuPbhSe4NXGVn_B6erIZXg-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f71.google.com with SMTP id p24so4013939wmc.1 for ; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 06:55:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=4fWcGknniN34BMZQRfYu7ig5TS7bSGJSIaSad7NVGAQ=; b=Njl3/LEsu3r0qoN84wyTvI8D3YU1Glc2BHkzdrTfznjJKl2TVs67w5MUa6ZC9bfViU MMgXTwqoFFZ/8QqWZFo8SwbZrbN2UQ2G5OE16Lnr2N+ysw6DUVnq6pjpf3VLxZd5XThO MLm8mNVzhIvvwiRDUf/GNYv8H54fhfMuYHllZAxIz24Nb4wp9GrDINe/EojzO4lzq05R 8VdvRy8+XdoJeu4FuysrWCbaHAQ5PKBHQgPep4Xi5MVbQ92yhwE6QrzXDp8P8ePvPmPq naTRZQYUBfh1whp8LWlPKkQ6ESmBbJF5U4eafbti9IBSp/xhb7BZ7RaUu9UbA7hJ6QEq ZHBQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532D58cyYrOGZ4jgREXinySpYXPKWfyip4ZckquZ6RWwgkU32Lgf 0kapDj8nIs8S1+PBmwodXZRNO5m+tzx1g2V49J8rs29uCw9s5OSYtawCAtjKjMCHonB5WbT5W5M Xi5+YyC0KCVNToXFxcvoGsw== X-Received: by 2002:adf:e887:: with SMTP id d7mr4213814wrm.62.1592574929110; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 06:55:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxpuqPDllmuPh3+fkUYx0uBWCKJJmE+Jprcee/nl4zyzRV+xwZZYCFfEHqUcd9SMQMxsgnWZQ== X-Received: by 2002:adf:e887:: with SMTP id d7mr4213799wrm.62.1592574928935; Fri, 19 Jun 2020 06:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f922:c400:56ee:75ff:fe8d:232b? ([2001:8a0:f922:c400:56ee:75ff:fe8d:232b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w17sm7642505wra.42.2020.06.19.06.55.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 19 Jun 2020 06:55:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: Unbreaking gdb on Solaris post-multitarget [PR 25939] To: Rainer Orth References: <7fb790ae-61a9-a6a3-3b87-74fcac400664@redhat.com> <0e3e81a9-a5de-42bc-7d58-094f2adca164@redhat.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 14:55:25 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2020 13:55:35 -0000 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