This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA (threads testsuite): More thread tests
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 11:51:41 -0700
- Subject: Re: RFA (threads testsuite): More thread tests
- Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
- References: <20020709154033.GA7204@nevyn.them.org> <3D65751B.98E850BA@redhat.com> <20020823013447.GA18835@nevyn.them.org>
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2002 at 04:34:51PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's two tests I had lying around from when I developed the gdbserver
> > > threads support. Gdbserver passes them with flying colors (if you use my
> > > other patch which lets gdbserver run tests properly). GDB shows a couple of
> > > problems, unpredictably (not always repeatable).
> > >
> > > OK to add these?
> >
> > Hi Joel,
> >
> > I understand the point of schedlock.exp, but what's the point of
> > print-threads.exp? What is it that you're testing?
>
> No specific feature - just the general ability to handle threads doing
> things. It has a slightly different behavior pattern than the other
> threads testscases, and triggered different problems. Oh, and I
> remember - there is no other testcase in the testsuite with
> pthread_join in it; no threads ever actually exit. I found some
> problems there while I was implementing the gdbserver threads support.
OK, then, since we definitely need more thread testing,
let's accept these. I like the way you verified that
schedlock was implemented for the target before testing it.
BTW, do these really have to be native-only? They should
work for embedded pthread targets, shouldn't they?