From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 2CB983858D32; Fri, 11 Aug 2023 16:45:36 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2CB983858D32 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1691772336; bh=QvjsPVlmX+GrgRyoyubi/n9msTpnMikR/SYBRMm7tS8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=xQ6rqo3gOjzaBLAjIyCf1fgVvi+sZfoHJQl2M2QbvjeFFVJiNub5PzTP4AKOuyvRS HvdNb5SrVFwLC2c+5u9gfQiyzv1lCeVjdCcdy54fG7g3fDZuu24u8wKmcCFaappgmS kbS6R8SDmXV8FFUwQoc/vDMrzSB5f5qSXmtbafbU= From: "luis.machado at arm dot com" To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug server/30387] gdbserver assert error on arm platform Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2023 16:45:34 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb X-Bugzilla-Component: server X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: critical X-Bugzilla-Who: luis.machado at arm dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: kevinb at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 14.1 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status 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 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D30387 Luis Machado changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|WAITING |NEW --- Comment #21 from Luis Machado --- Hi, Thanks for the patch. A few comments. When running this test on a 32-bit docker instance in 64-bit hardware, agai= nst the native-gdbserver board, I'm seeing FAIL's: # of expected passes 3074 # of unexpected failures 13 The FAIL's are of this kind: FAIL: gdb.threads/next-fork-exec-other-thread.exp: fork_func=3Dfork: target-non-stop=3Don: non-stop=3Doff: displaced-stepping=3Doff: i=3D0: next= to other line They fail for both a patched and an unpatched gdb. But I see 12 unexpected = core files for the unpatched gdb. It passes for both patched and unpatched native gdb though. So it might not= be exercising the bug there. Also, I gave the testcase a try, and I noticed it takes a reasonably long t= ime to run, both on 32-bit and 64-bit. Is it a timing issue of some kind that we need a lot of iterations to run to get it to show up? >From the testcase description, it looks like this is mostly a software single-step issue and on gdbserver. Should we isolate the tests to gdbserver and known targets using software single-step instead of making all targets = run the test only to potentially PASS every time? So, in summary: * For native gdb (32-bit or 64-bit), this doesn't seem to be exercising the bug. * For native-gdbserver on 64-bit, it doesn't seem to exercise the bug. * For native-gdbserver on 32-bit, I see unexpected core files, which indica= tes it does exercise the bug, but I also see unexpected failures, which may be something off with the testcase patterns. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=