Re: [RFC] fix gdb.threads/non-stop-fair-events.exp timeouts

[Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>]

On 09/09/2015 12:40 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 09/09/2015 05:08 PM, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> > On 09/08/2015 10:30 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > > Yeah, I've seen this before with a local series I use for debugging
> > > software single-step things that implements software single-stepping
> > > on x86.  I just re-tried it now after rebasing that series to
> > > current mainline, and I still see the time outs against gdbserver.
> > >
> > > AFAICS, nios2 is a software single-step target that does not implement
> > > displaced stepping either.  I had a patch for this that I had
> > > never posted.  See attached.
> >
> > Hmmm, these two patches are not working for me.  The trouble is that
> > this part:
> >
> > > +gdb_test_multiple "si" $msg {
> > > +    -re "displaced pc to.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> > > +	set displaced_stepping_enabled 1
> > > +    }
> > > +    -re ".*$gdb_prompt $" {
> > > +    }
> > > +}
> >
> > is causing the target to step from main to pthread_self, which is in a
> > different file.  This causes the subsequent breakpoint commands to fail,
> > and things go south from there:
>
> OK, I got "lucky" on x86 and a stepi runs some instruction before the call.
> Could you try simply replacing the "si" with "next" ?  It doesn't matter
> whether that issues several single-steps or not.  What matters is that gdb
> tries to step past the breakpoint that is set at the current PC (from the
> earlier runto_main).  We're trying to figure out if gdb uses displaced
> stepping for that.

Yes, that fixes the trouble, and the tests run OK now.  I did find that 
it still timed out 1 of the 5 times I ran it, though, so maybe the 
timeout factor really does need to match NUM_THREADS to be safe?

-Sandra