On 09/19/2013 09:30 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > 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?
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
