Re: Tests about bug step-jump-cont

2008-03-17 Thread Jan Kratochvil
Hi Wenji, while I cannot comment on your kernel code analysis the testcase was definitely broken since 2008-02-03 - it never PASSed. It should be fixed now. /* We must set PC to our new function as the current PC stays in the glibc function RAISE no matter which part of the code called it

Re: Tests about bug step-jump-cont

2008-03-13 Thread Roland McGrath
Now that the arch changes are upstream (user_regset, single-step cleanups), I am not really concerned about any misbehavior of old upstream kernels. We're not going to try to fix them, and the bleeding edge upstream code (which is my code) is somewhat different now. So for arch issues please just

Tests about bug step-jump-cont

2008-03-13 Thread Wenji Huang
Hi, I made tests of step-jump-cont (utrace wiki page) on i686 and x86_64 with upstream 2.6.24 kernel. They have different behaviors. With help of assert statement and stap script, I got the following understandings: For i686: 1. Wait child stop upon SIGUSR1 2. Set singlestep on chil