On 03/31/2016 08:01 PM, Yvan Roux wrote: > On 31 March 2016 at 20:54, Pedro Alves <pal...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 03/31/2016 07:46 PM, Yvan Roux wrote: >>> So, when I look in /proc/<pids>, the status of the 2 processes are: >>> example.exe : tracing stop >>> cat : zombie >>> and the wait return value is 0 >> >> I'm confused. What about the other two processes? Before >> you said none of the 4 processes is actually killed. Was that >> incorrect? If example.exe is in tracing stop, I'd expect >> gdb is still tracing it. > > Yes sorry, I only mentioned these 2 processes because they are only > one known by close_wait_program, and to which the various signals are > sent. > > So, none of the 4 processes are killed, sh and gdb are both in sleeping state. >
Looking at your PIDs again: PID PPID command 100 99 ./example.exe 101 99 cat 102 100 sh -c gdb -nx -nw --quiet > /dev/null 2>&1 ./example.exe 103 102 gdb -nx -nw --quiet ./example.exe I looked around in guality's testsuite and I found it uses GDB's "run" command, not "attach", so I'd expect example.exe to be a child of GDB, but the PIDs above indicate it isn't. How can this be? I didn't find the exact same gdb invocation like yours though, so maybe you have local changes that make it use "attach" for some reason? Thanks, Pedro Alves _______________________________________________ DejaGnu mailing list DejaGnu@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/dejagnu
