From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3980 invoked by alias); 24 Apr 2004 00:03:09 -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 3916 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2004 00:03:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Apr 2004 00:03:07 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3O037KG001553 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 20:03:07 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (to-dhcp51.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.151]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3O036p30979 for ; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 20:03:06 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E00CA2BAD; Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:02:30 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40895A36.70005@gnu.org> Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 00:03:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com Subject: Re: New test failures - observer.exp, sigaltstack.exp, siginfo.exp References: <20040416151243.GA31255@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040416151243.GA31255@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00156.txt.bz2 > These new tests are all failing on my i686-pc-linux-gnu system. > > 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? Which exact kernel version? As I mentioned in another post, this works for me .... Andrew