Re: FAIL: gdb.base/nextoverexit.exp: next over exit (the program exited)

[Pedro Alves]

On 09/19/2013 09:30 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 15:40:40 +0800, Yue Lu <hacklu.newborn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On 09/12/2013 04:05 AM, Yue Lu wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-09/msg00253.html
> 
>> First thank you to tell me how to apply patch from email. I used
>> webmail of gmail and directly copy patch from the email which often
>> apply failed, then I had to patch line by line. Now I used mutt to
>> save email to mbox file then apply it, life changed! Before you told
>> me this, I never imaged this, so thanks!
> 
> Well, never assume that we'd use any convoluted procedures, such as
> manually copying a patch's text.  ;-) Never hesitate to ask if you think
> some process is too complicated to be done manually -- there will always
> be someone who is happy to tell you about his creative solution.
> 
>> I have test your patch, seems need a tiny fix. This is just a spelling
>> mistaken I think.
> 
> Right; I had come to the same conclusion, see my message in the other
> thread.
> 
> 
>> After add this change, the gdb can work. But I have found a little
>> strange from the origin gdb.
>> When I set a breakpoint, then I run the inferior, after hit the
>> breakpoint, I just input next next until the inferior exit, then the
>> gdb will complain this:
>> [Inferior 1 (bogus thread id 0) exited normally]
>> Thread-specific breakpoint -37 deleted - thread 4 is gone.
>> Thread-specific breakpoint -38 deleted - thread 4 is gone.
>> Thread-specific breakpoint -39 deleted - thread 4 is gone.
>> Thread-specific breakpoint 0 deleted - thread 4 is gone.
>>
>> I am not sure why this will output or is reasonable.
>>
>> I got this output like this:
>> $./gdb gdb
>> $b main
>> $r
>> $n
>> $n
>> ...
>> $q  (quit the debugged gdb)
> 
> "As of recently", I notice the same behavior for GDB on both x86
> GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd, also resulting in the gdb.base/nextoverexit.exp
> test failing.  So, I don't think this is related to any Hurd
> patches/behavior, but instead a general issue.
> 
> Quoting from the x86 GNU/Linux' gdb/testsuite/gdb.base2/gdb.log:
> 
>     Breakpoint 1, main () at 
> ../../../Ferry_Tagscherer/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nextoverexit.c:21
>     21        exit (0);
>     (gdb) next
>     [Inferior 1 (process 25208) exited normally]
>     Thread-specific breakpoint -5 deleted - thread 1 is gone.
>     Thread-specific breakpoint -6 deleted - thread 1 is gone.
>     Thread-specific breakpoint -7 deleted - thread 1 is gone.
>     Thread-specific breakpoint 0 deleted - thread 1 is gone.
>     (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/nextoverexit.exp: next over exit (the program exited)
> 
> Can others confirm this/is this a known issue?

Hmm, that message is new, but we shouldn't be seeing it for
internal breakpoints...  That'll be my fault.  I'll take a look.

-- 
Pedro Alves