Great, thanks Todd!
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Todd Fiala <[email protected]> wrote: > I just finished clearing out some Linux test errors (I'm now all green on > Linux x86_64). I'll add this to a queue I've got with some changes from > Piotr, Ed and you in it now. > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Andrew MacPherson <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> Just pinging this again in case anyone has a chance to review the small >> Linux detach patch here. Thanks! >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Andrew MacPherson < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I'm attaching a patch here that resolves the issue of a signal being >>> delivered to the inferior on detach, let me know if I should start a new >>> thread for this but since it's related to what we were discussing I'm >>> attaching it here. To reproduce the issue just launch a process, then in a >>> new terminal: >>> >>> sudo lldb -p <pid> >>> c >>> q >>> >>> When quitting the inferior receives a SIGSTOP because the process is >>> already running when the PTRACE_DETACH is sent. I can't find a clear answer >>> on what's supposed to happen here (PTRACE_DETACH sent to running thread) >>> but this is the behaviour I'm seeing. The docs do indicate that >>> PRACE_DETACH is like PTRACE_CONT and should only be sent to a stopped >>> thread. >>> >>> I also tried to add a unit test for this and the previous patch, however >>> I hit http://llvm.org/pr16172. The tests these two patches require are >>> similar to the one mentioned in that case and I get the same errors in my >>> sample test as when running that one: >>> >>> attach -p <pid> (ok) >>> c (ok) >>> detach (error: Detach failed: No such process) >>> >>> And: >>> >>> attach -p <pid> (ok) >>> c (ok) >>> process interrupt (ok) >>> c (error: Failed to resume process: Resume request failed - process >>> still running..) >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Ed Maste <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On 21 March 2014 15:14, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > I'm pretty sure we have some test cases that test attach. If we >>>> don't, then it would be great to add one. If we do, then it would be >>>> interesting to see why they didn't fail. For instance, maybe they just >>>> didn't bother to try "continue" after the attach. Just adding that would >>>> be good too. >>>> >>>> We definitely have some, because they used to fail early on in the >>>> FreeBSD porting effort. I suspect that your suggestion is correct and >>>> they just don't do anything but attach and then quit. >>>> >>>> On a related note, I'm pretty sure we don't have tests for detach. >>>> I'll see about extending tests to include that at some point. >>>> >>>> -Ed >>>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > Todd Fiala | Software Engineer | [email protected] | 650-943-3180 >
_______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
