This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 5/6] Test tracepoints are installed or not


On 12/12/2012 08:23 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
Not sure what you mean.  The only change compared to the original one
would be the new

set test "tracepoint on pendfunc2 installed"

line.  Sorry if that wasn't clear.  (you'd probably change the other pass
to be 'pass "$test"' too then.)


OK, I get your points now.


>
>>It seems best to me to only use exp_continue in cases we won't to
>>consume/skip output, and in the case of this patch, split the two
>>tests into two consecutive gdb_expects.
>
>If this way, we can't handle that two notifications arrive in a
>reversed order (which is also correct).
This seems to be crux of the issue here.  I don't understand how
reverse order would be correct.  This:

  =breakpoint-modified,bkpt={number="1",type="tracepoint".*.*times=\"0\".*installed="n"
  =breakpoint-modified,bkpt={number="1",type="tracepoint".*.*times=\"0\".*installed="y"

means the frontend ends up thinking the tracepoint is installed, while this:

  =breakpoint-modified,bkpt={number="1",type="tracepoint".*.*times=\"0\".*installed="y"
  =breakpoint-modified,bkpt={number="1",type="tracepoint".*.*times=\"0\".*installed="n"

means the frontend ends up thinking the tracepoint is not installed, which
I'd think is not what we want in this test.


I linked this with other issue I am thinking about recently. It is about 'gdb may send notifications on breakpoint 1 and breakpoint 2 in different orders', and how to write test to handle. Sorry for the confusion and messing up the discussion.


Again, thanks for your patient review, Pedro.

--
Yao (éå)


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]