Hi! On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 15:40:40 +0800, Yue Lu <hacklu.newb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 8:37 PM, Pedro Alves <pal...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 09/12/2013 04:05 AM, Yue Lu wrote: > > > >> On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 2:53 AM, Pedro Alves <pal...@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? Grüße, Thomas
pgp6ZND3CLoqz.pgp
Description: PGP signature