https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=397424
--- Comment #11 from Dimitrije Nikolic <dimitrije.niko...@rt-rk.com> --- (In reply to Philippe Waroquiers from comment #8) > (In reply to Dimitrije Nikolic from comment #5) > Finally replying, after some holidays ;). > > > Created attachment 114443 [details] > > glibc2-27 & gdbserver problem v3 > > > > I was trying for a few days to solve this problem like you suggested (before > > sending first patch), but it's too complicated to make sed expression which > > will filter all possible outputs result on the same way. There are too many > > differences between versions of glibc and platforms. > Yes, all these differences are very painful (and these differences > are the reasons why we already have about 60 sed expressions > in filter_gdb). > It is not very clear to me why the output of glibc 2-27 cannot > be handled similarly to the other differences we had up to now. > Can you clarify this by showing an (unfiltered) stacktrace > produced by glibc 2-27 ? > (e.g. attach the unfiltered output of mcinfcallWSRU obtained by > running the test with --keep-unfiltered). > > Otherwise, if we reach the conclusion that the 'start/end delete' > technique is the best, I think we already have this technique > supported in filter_gdb via: > -e '/filter_gdb BEGIN drop/,/filter_gdb END drop/d' > \ > I attached differences between output of test on MIPS and X86 architectures. (with glibc 2.27) Both of these outputs are different from present exp file. I suggest that we use technique > supported in filter_gdb via: > -e '/filter_gdb BEGIN drop/,/filter_gdb END drop/d' and I attached patch glibc2-27_gdbserver_v4_part1.diff -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
