From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 998A13858D37 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 01:53:31 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 998A13858D37 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 39A671E21F; Tue, 19 Jul 2022 21:53:31 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2022 21:53:30 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/7] glibc-2.34: Fix gdb.base/gdb-sigterm.exp failure/error Content-Language: en-US To: Kevin Buettner , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20220227000051.3336149-1-kevinb@redhat.com> From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: <20220227000051.3336149-1-kevinb@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) 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: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 01:53:33 -0000 On 2022-02-26 19:00, Kevin Buettner via Gdb-patches wrote: > This series addresses Pedro's concerns regarding the v2 series posted > last year: > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-August/181575.html > > In particular, it introduces a new exception which will be thrown > when GDB receives a SIGTERM. That exception is handled at the > top level when possible, though for the extension languages, Python > and Guile, a somewhat different approach had to be taken. In order to > ensure that this new exception isn't inadvertently swallowed on its > way up to the top level, I also did an audit of the try / catch code > involving gdb_exception, making adjustments where necessary. I started to look at a gdb.base/gdb-sigterm.exp failure, searched the list for mentions of that test, and found this series which I think addresses exactly the failure I am seeing. I'm just mentionning this to bump the thread :). Simon