This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Fix solib-disc.exp regression with x86 gdbserver
On Sunday 11 April 2010 17:04:28, H.J. Lu wrote:
> I got following extra failures with native gdbserver on Linux/x86-64.
Compared to what?
> Are they expected?
>
> FAIL: gdb.ada/tasks.exp: continue to breakpoint (the program exited)
> FAIL: gdb.ada/tasks.exp: continue until end of program (the program is
> no longer running)
> FAIL: gdb.ada/tasks.exp: info tasks after hitting breakpoint
> FAIL: gdb.ada/tasks.exp: info tasks before inserting breakpoint
No clue.
> FAIL: gdb.base/break-entry.exp: running to *0x4002e0 in runto
I see this too (Linux/x86-64).
> FAIL: gdb.base/randomize.exp: fixed addresses should match
Expected, gdbserver doesn't support disabling randomization.
> FAIL: gdb.base/recurse.exp: second instance watchpoint deleted when
> leaving scope
I don't see this one.
> FAIL: gdb.base/watch-vfork.exp: Watchpoint triggers after vfork (sw)
> (the program exited)
Expected.
> FAIL: gdb.cp/exception.exp: continue to second throw
I see this too.
> FAIL: gdb.mi/mi-var-cmd.exp: in-and-out-of-scope: in scope now
I see this too.
> FAIL: gdb.threads/attach-stopped.exp: threaded: attach2, exit leaves
> process sleeping
I don't see this one. May be a red herring -- gdbserver doesn't
support what's being tested, IIRC.
> FAIL: gdb.threads/execl.exp: continue across exec
> FAIL: gdb.threads/fork-child-threads.exp: get to the spawned thread
> (the program exited)
> FAIL: gdb.threads/fork-child-threads.exp: next over fork
> FAIL: gdb.threads/fork-child-threads.exp: two threads found
Expected, gdbserver doesn't support following exec or fork events.
> FAIL: gdb.trace/backtrace.exp: 1.13: trace in recursion: depth not equal to 3
<skip a bunch of gdb.trace failures>
> FAIL: gdb.trace/while-dyn.exp: 5.12: define ws <stepcount>
Only recently (a couple of days) have the gdb.trace/ tests started
running against gdbserver (it didn't support tracepoints before),
but, none of these fails are expected on x86_64. The all pass
for me. I'd like to understand them. What are the failures like?
--
Pedro Alves