This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] Support exec tracing on GNU/Linux and HP-UX
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 20:10:54 +0400
- Subject: Re: [RFC] Support exec tracing on GNU/Linux and HP-UX
- References: <20071019175920.GA548@caradoc.them.org> <20071022043831.GD764@adacore.com> <20071022114328.GA1421@caradoc.them.org> <20071022184702.GG764@adacore.com> <20071022185627.GH764@adacore.com> <20071022193024.GA16312@caradoc.them.org> <20071221153039.GO6154@adacore.com>
> What do you think of the approach? I'll re-apply your patch on top
> of mine, and see what we get now.
The testsuite results on hpux seem to be a tad unstable (I get
some shakiness in follow-fork/vfork and maint.exp). but I see
the following differences too:
| PASS | | foll-exec.exp: insert first exec catchpoint |
| PASS | | foll-exec.exp: continue to first exec catchpoint |
| FAIL | PASS | foll-exec.exp: sync up after possible failure 2 |
| FAIL | PASS | foll-exec.exp: prepare to jump to execl call |
| FAIL | PASS | foll-exec.exp: jump to execl call |
| FAIL | PASS | foll-exec.exp: prepare to jump to execv call |
| FAIL | PASS | foll-exec.exp: jump to execv call |
On the left hand side, the results before the patch, and on the
right the result after your patch.
So, in terms of results, your patch looks good to me :).
--
Joel