From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13036 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2004 16:42:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 12831 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2004 16:42:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Apr 2004 16:42:55 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.32 #1 (Debian)) id 1BFyKl-00088Q-1o; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:42:55 -0400 Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:21:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: New test failures - observer.exp, sigaltstack.exp, siginfo.exp Message-ID: <20040420164255.GA31037@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20040416151243.GA31255@nevyn.them.org> <408550CD.5080902@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <408550CD.5080902@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00111.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 12:33:17PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > (assume I managed to get them to pass on at least one system :-) Naturally - just not mine :) > >sigaltstack.exp fails like this: > > > >finish > >Run till exit from #0 catcher (signal=26) at > >/opt/src/gdb/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/sigaltstack.c:71 > >Warning: > >Cannot insert breakpoint 0. > >Error accessing memory address 0xffffe420: Input/output error. > >(gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/sigaltstack.exp: finish from catch LEAF > > > >The problem is that the signal trampoline is read-only. We can't set > >software breakpoints there. I suspect there is no way to do this portably. > >Should we skip it instead, i.e. finish right to the place where the signal > >was raised? > > Kernel bug. Two fixes: > > - the kernel gets fixed to allow writes to this page -> it should be no > different to other read-only text sections Good luck - I don't think the kernel maintainers will buy it. > - we modify GDB to, when it can't set a return breakpoint, single-step > out of the problem I wonder if we can mark the particular solib as unwriteable and avoid the failing writes... otherwise, at least handle the error silently. I'll investigate someday; in the mean time do you mind if I KFAIL the above output? -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer