Re: [patch] New thread test to exercise Daniel's Patch

[Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn at redhat dot com>]

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:59:30PM -0500, Jeff Johnston wrote:
>
> > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 04:04:00PM -0500, Jeff Johnston wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Ok, I had the thread checks in the Continue test.  If I change it to the 
> > > > way above, now I get 3 "Process no longer exists "messages but the test 
> > > > completes. :(
> > > >
> > > > I'm really starting to hate these test macros.  What is the reasoning 
> > > > behind avoiding send_gdb / gdb_expect?
> > >
> > >
> > > They don't automatically handle things like internal errors,
> > > disconnects, et cetera.  Want to post your current version and I'll
> > > give it a try?
>
>
> >  -re "Program received signal SIGINT.*$gdb_prompt $"
> >    {
> >      pass "$message"
> >    }
>
>
> Nothing automatically sets $message.  The ERROR: you saw is DejaGNU's
> generic failure message for things like syntax errors in expect blocks;
> I sent a patch to the dejagnu list a month or so ago to print more
> helpful information.  Try the attached script instead.

Thanks for restoring my sanity.  I got mixed up by the fact that the 
gdb_test_multiple macro uses $message inside itself based on the passed 
argument.  I thought the conditions I specify would be able to use the same 
variable.

It runs successfully for me on my RHEL3 system.

> Oddly, running a fixed manythreads.exp with an unpatched GDB, I get a
> SIGSEGV in pthread_join.  It shows up as a FAIL (yay).  The patched GDB
> shows up as nine PASSes (yay).  Re-running it a number of times, the
> SIGSEGV came and went intermittently.
>
> Running the test with LinuxThreads an internal error (lp->status == 0
> assertion failed) came and went also.
>
> I guess that makes it a good test.... now someone will have to _fix_
> those.

Do I resubmit the patched test or has it been approved?

-- Jeff J.