From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 3A721384A033; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:06 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 3A721384A033 From: "brobecker at gnat dot com" To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug gdb/25475] FAIL: gdb.server/solib-list.exp: non-stop 0/1: target remote (got interactive prompt) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:06 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb X-Bugzilla-Component: gdb X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: brobecker at gnat dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: gdb-prs@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-prs mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 00:08:06 -0000 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D25475 Joel Brobecker changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |brobecker at gnat dot com --- Comment #17 from Joel Brobecker --- Philippe proposed we put this one on the list of issues we should consider for the GDB 10.1 release. At the moment, I am confused about the relationship between the problem being reported, the portion of code being discussed, and the CLI change proposal. Do we understand why GDB thought the executable as ld-2.26.so (the loader)? I have a suspicion that this is the important question, is it not. In other words, yes, you guys probably found a bug where GDB is not asking confirmat= ion when it should, but isn't the crux of the matter the fact that GDB thinks the executable is now ld-2.26.so, which of course doesn't match the executa= ble it was given. If GDB thought instead that the executable was still `solib-list', I assume that we wouldn't get better an error about matching executables. Did I misunderstand what the test is doing? If I did, considering Philippe's results on his experiment, my knee-jerk reaction is that this is the kind of change that we should consider carefully before putting it in a release. The bug itself seems relatively minor. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=