[Bug testsuite/28617] New: FAIL: gdb.base/info-os.exp: get process groups (timeout)

[Bug testsuite/28617] New: FAIL: gdb.base/info-os.exp: get process groups (timeout)

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28617

            Bug ID: 28617
           Summary: FAIL: gdb.base/info-os.exp: get process groups
                    (timeout)
           Product: gdb
           Version: 11.1
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: testsuite
          Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
          Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

On OBS I ran now a couple of times into this cluster of FAILs:
...
FAIL: gdb.base/info-os.exp: get process groups (timeout)
FAIL: gdb.base/info-os.exp: get threads (timeout)
FAIL: gdb.base/info-os.exp: get file descriptors (timeout)
FAIL: gdb.base/info-os.exp: get internet-domain sockets (timeout)
FAIL: gdb.base/info-os.exp: get shared-memory regions (timeout)
FAIL: gdb.base/info-os.exp: get semaphores (timeout)
...

In more detail:
...
(gdb) info os procgroups^M
FAIL: gdb.base/info-os.exp: get process groups (timeout)
...

The procgroups is the only one that does a sort, so first does a bunch of
processing, and only then starts to produce output.

I'm considering adding a -verbose that notes progress, such that we can
differentiate in the testsuite between slow and stuck.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug testsuite/28617] FAIL: gdb.base/info-os.exp: get process groups (timeout)

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28617

--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #0)
> I'm considering adding a -verbose that notes progress, such that we can
> differentiate in the testsuite between slow and stuck.

Hmm, that seems to be somewhat counterstyle, since the result of the command is
returned as an xml string.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug testsuite/28617] FAIL: gdb.base/info-os.exp: get process groups (timeout)

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28617

--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #0)
> In more detail:
> ...
> (gdb) info os procgroups^M
> FAIL: gdb.base/info-os.exp: get process groups (timeout)
> ...

Hmm, I see the info os processes command before runs into:
...
10916      abuild     /bin/shPASS: gdb.base/info-os.exp: get process list
 -c if [ -f testsuite/config.status ]; then \^M
  rootme=`pwd`; export rootme; \^M
  rootsrc=`cd ../../gdb; pwd`; export rootsrc; \^M
...

So the list is still being generated, but a pass is already issued?  How does
that happen?  I don't see any '(gdb) ' in the process list that could have
triggered this.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug testsuite/28617] FAIL: gdb.base/info-os.exp: get process groups (timeout)

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28617

--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #2)
> (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #0)
> > In more detail:
> > ...
> > (gdb) info os procgroups^M
> > FAIL: gdb.base/info-os.exp: get process groups (timeout)
> > ...
> 
> Hmm, I see the info os processes command before runs into:
> ...
> 10916      abuild     /bin/shPASS: gdb.base/info-os.exp: get process list
>  -c if [ -f testsuite/config.status ]; then \^M
>   rootme=`pwd`; export rootme; \^M
>   rootsrc=`cd ../../gdb; pwd`; export rootsrc; \^M
> ...
> 
> So the list is still being generated, but a pass is already issued?  How
> does that happen?  I don't see any '(gdb) ' in the process list that could
> have triggered this.

I see, that's because 11.1 doesn't contain commit 50f9e7d8538 "[gdb/testsuite]
Fix DUPLICATE in gdb.base/info-os.exp" yet.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.