On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 01:05:40 +0100, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I had not looked into the step-jump-cont-strict case before.
> I think this test is wrong in its expectation.
step-jump-cont itself should be a simple test now (it always PASSes, it FAILed
only on one older i386 utrace kernel).
step-jump-cont-strict should now hopefully have the right expectations.
It now fails on non-utrace 2.6.25-rc5-git4 with IMO a kernel ptrace bug:
Trap flag found clear after it was set by the inferior.
Also it fails later on:
PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK should stop us at instr8 (not instr5).
as IMO PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK does there PTRACE_SINGLESTEP on the second run
instead of PTRACE_SINGLEBLOCK again, tested on the Fedora kernel
kernel-2.6.25-0.65.rc2.git7.fc9.x86_64.
Regards,
Jan
