--- /dev/null
+if $tracelevel then {
+ strace $tracelevel
+}
+
+set prms_id 0
+set bug_id 0
+
+gdb_reinitialize_dir $srcdir/$subdir
+set binfile $objdir/$subdir/signals
+
+if ![file exists $binfile] then {
+ perror "$binfile does not exist."
+ return 0
+}
+
+proc signal_tests_1 {} {
+ global prompt
+ if [runto main] then {
+ gdb_test "next" "signal \[(\]+SIGUSR1" \
+ "next over signal \[(\]SIGALRM, handler\[)\]+"
+ gdb_test "next" "alarm \[(\]" \
+ "next over signal \[(\]+SIGUSR1, handler\[)\]+"
+ gdb_test "next" "\[+\]+count" \
+ "next over alarm (1)"
+ # An alarm has been signaled, give the signal time to get delivered.
+ exec sleep 2
+
+ # i386 BSD currently fails the next test with a SIGTRAP.
+ setup_xfail "i*86-*-bsd*"
+ # But Dynix has a DECR_PC_AFTER_BREAK of zero, so the failure
+ # is shadowed by hitting the through_sigtramp_breakpoint.
+ clear_xfail "i*86-sequent-bsd*"
+ # Univel SVR4 i386 continues instead of stepping.
+ setup_xfail "i*86-univel-sysv4*"
+ send "next\n"
+ expect {
+ -re "alarm .*$prompt $" { pass "next to 2nd alarm (1)" }
+ -re "Program received signal SIGTRAP.*first.*$prompt $" {
+
+ # This can happen on machines that have a trace flag
+ # in their PS register.
+ # The trace flag in the PS register will be set due to
+ # the `next' command.
+ # Before calling the signal handler, the PS register
+ # is pushed along with the context on the user stack.
+ # When the signal handler has finished, it reenters the
+ # the kernel via a sigreturn syscall, which restores the
+ # PS register along with the context.
+ # If the kernel erroneously does not clear the trace flag
+ # in the pushed context, gdb will receive a SIGTRAP from
+ # the set trace flag in the restored context after the
+ # signal handler has finished.
+
+ # I do not yet understand why the SIGTRAP does not occur
+ # after stepping the instruction at the restored PC on
+ # i386 BSDI 1.0 systems.
+
+ # Note that the vax under Ultrix also exhibits
+ # this behaviour (it is uncovered by the `continue from
+ # a break in a signal handler' test below).
+ # With this test the failure is shadowed by hitting the
+ # through_sigtramp_breakpoint upon return from the signal
+ # handler.
+
+ fail "next to 2nd alarm (1) (probably kernel bug)"
+ gdb_test "next" "alarm" "next to 2nd alarm (1)"
+ }
+ -re "Program exited with code.*$prompt $" {
+
+ # This is apparently a bug in the UnixWare kernel (but
+ # has not been investigated beyond the
+ # resume/target_wait level, and has not been reported
+ # to Univel). If it steps when a signal is pending,
+ # it does a continue instead. I don't know whether
+ # there is a workaround.
+
+ # Perhaps this problem exists on other SVR4 systems;
+ # but (a) we have no reason to think so, and (b) if we
+ # put a wrong xfail here, we never get an XPASS to let
+ # us know that it was incorrect (and then if such a
+ # configuration regresses we have no way of knowing).
+ # Solaris is not a relevant data point either way
+ # because it lacks single stepping.
+
+ fail "'next' behaved as 'continue'"
+ return 0
+ }
+ -re ".*$prompt $" { fail "next to 2nd alarm (1)" }
+ timeout { fail "next to 2nd alarm (1); (timeout)" }
+ eof { fail "next to 2nd alarm (1); (eof)" }
+ }
+
+ gdb_test "break handler" "Breakpoint \[0-9\]*"
+ gdb_test "next" "\[+\]+count" "next to 2nd ++count"
+ # An alarm has been signaled, give the signal time to get delivered.
+ exec sleep 2
+
+ set bash_bug 0
+ send "next\n"
+ expect {
+ -re "Breakpoint.*handler.*$prompt $" { pass "next" }
+ -re "Program received signal SIGEMT.*$prompt $" {
+ # Bash versions before 1.13.5 cause this behaviour
+ # by blocking SIGTRAP.
+ fail "next (known problem with bash versions before 1.13.5)"
+ set bash_bug 1
+ gdb_test "signal 0" "Breakpoint.*handler"
+ }
+ -re ".*$prompt $" { fail "next" }
+ timeout { fail "(timeout)" }
+ eof { fail "(eof)" }
+ }
+
+ # This doesn't test that main is frame #2, just that main is frame
+ # #2, #3, or higher. At some point this should be fixed (but
+ # it quite possibly would introduce new FAILs on some systems).
+ gdb_test "backtrace" "#0.*handler.*#1.*#2.*main"
+
+ gdb_test "break func1" "Breakpoint \[0-9\]*"
+ gdb_test "break func2" "Breakpoint \[0-9\]*"
+
+ # Vax Ultrix and i386 BSD currently fail the next test with
+ # a SIGTRAP, but with different symptoms.
+ setup_xfail "vax-*-ultrix*"
+ setup_xfail "i*86-*-bsd*"
+ send "continue\n"
+ expect {
+ -re "Breakpoint.*func1.*$prompt $" { pass "continue" }
+ -re "Program received signal SIGTRAP.*second.*$prompt $" {
+
+ # See explanation for `next to 2nd alarm (1)' fail above.
+ # We did step into the signal handler, hit a breakpoint
+ # in the handler and continued from the breakpoint.
+ # The set trace flag in the restored context is causing
+ # the SIGTRAP, without stepping an instruction.
+
+ fail "continue (probably kernel bug)"
+ gdb_test "continue" "Breakpoint.*func1"
+ }
+ -re "Program received signal SIGTRAP.*func1 ..;.*$prompt $" {
+
+ # On the vax under Ultrix the set trace flag in the restored
+ # context is causing the SIGTRAP, but after stepping one
+ # instruction, as expected.
+
+ fail "continue (probably kernel bug)"
+ gdb_test "continue" "Breakpoint.*func1"
+ }
+ -re ".*$prompt $" { fail "continue" }
+ default { fail "continue" }
+ }
+ gdb_test "signal SIGUSR1" "Breakpoint.*handler"
+
+ # Will tend to wrongly require an extra continue.
+
+ # The problem here is that the breakpoint at func1 will be
+ # inserted, and when the system finishes with the signal
+ # handler it will try to execute there. For GDB to try to
+ # remember that it was going to step over a breakpoint when a
+ # signal happened, distinguish this case from the case where
+ # func1 is called from the signal handler, etc., seems
+ # exceedingly difficult. So don't expect this to get fixed
+ # anytime soon.
+
+ setup_xfail "*-*-*"
+ send "continue\n"
+ expect {
+ -re "Breakpoint.*func2.*$prompt $" { pass "continue" }
+ -re "Breakpoint.*func1.*$prompt $" {
+ fail "continue"
+ gdb_test "continue" "Breakpoint.*func2"
+ }
+ -re ".*$prompt $" { fail "continue" }
+ default { fail "continue" }
+ }
+
+ exec sleep 2
+
+ # GDB yanks out the breakpoints to step over the breakpoint it
+ # stopped at, which means the breakpoint at handler is yanked.
+ # But if NO_SINGLE_STEP, we won't get another chance to reinsert
+ # them (at least not with procfs, where we tell the kernel not
+ # to tell gdb about `pass' signals). So the fix would appear to
+ # be to just yank that one breakpoint when we step over it.
+
+ setup_xfail "sparc-*-*"
+ setup_xfail "rs6000-*-*"
+
+ # A faulty bash will not step the inferior into sigtramp on sun3.
+ if {$bash_bug} then {
+ setup_xfail "m68*-*-sunos4*"
+ }
+
+ gdb_test "continue" "Breakpoint.*handler"
+
+ # If the NO_SINGLE_STEP failure happened, we have already exited.
+ # If we succeeded a continue will return from the handler to func2.
+ # GDB now has `forgotten' that it intended to step over the
+ # breakpoint at func2 and will stop at func2.
+ setup_xfail "*-*-*"
+ # The sun3 with a faulty bash will also be `forgetful' but it
+ # already got the spurious stop at func2 and this continue will work.
+ if {$bash_bug} then {
+ clear_xfail "m68*-*-sunos4*"
+ }
+ gdb_test "continue" "Program exited with code 010"
+ }
+}
+
+# On a few losing systems, ptrace (PT_CONTINUE) or ptrace (PT_STEP)
+# causes pending signals to be cleared, which causes these tests to
+# get nowhere fast. This is totally losing behavior (perhaps there
+# are cases in which is it useful but the user needs more control,
+# which they mostly have in GDB), but some people apparently think it
+# is a feature. It is documented in the ptrace manpage on Motorola
+# Delta Series sysV68 R3V7.1 and on HPUX 9.0. Even the non-HPUX PA
+# OSes (BSD and OSF/1) seem to have figured they had to copy this
+# braindamage.
+
+if {[ istarget "m68*-motorola-*" ] || [ istarget "hppa*-*-bsd*" ] ||
+ [ istarget "*-*-hpux*" ] || [ istarget "hppa*-*-osf*" ]} then {
+ setup_xfail "*-*-*"
+ fail "ptrace loses on signals on this target"
+ return 0
+}
+
+{
+ gdb_load $binfile
+ signal_tests_1
+
+ # Force a resync, so we're looking at the right prompt. On SCO we
+ # were getting out of sync (I don't understand why).
+ send "p 1+1\n"
+ expect {
+ -re "= 2.*$prompt $" {}
+ -re ".*$prompt $" { perror "sync trouble in signals.exp" }
+ default { perror "sync trouble in signals.exp" }
+ }
+
+ if [runto main] then {
+ gdb_test "break handler if 0" "Breakpoint \[0-9\]*"
+ gdb_test "set \\\$handler_breakpoint_number = \\\$bpnum" ""
+
+ # Get to the point where a signal is waiting to be delivered
+ gdb_test "next" "signal \[(\]+SIGUSR1"
+ gdb_test "next" "alarm \[(\]+"
+ gdb_test "next" "\[+\]+count"
+ # Give the signal time to get delivered
+ exec sleep 2
+
+ # Now call a function. When GDB tries to run the stack dummy,
+ # it will hit the breakpoint at handler. Provided it doesn't
+ # lose its cool, this is not a problem, it just has to note
+ # that the breakpoint condition is false and keep going.
+
+ gdb_test "p func1 ()" "^p func1 \[)(\]+\r\n.\[0-9\]* = void"
+
+ # Make sure the count got incremented.
+
+ # Haven't investigated this xfail
+ setup_xfail "rs6000-*-*"
+ gdb_test "p count" "= 2"
+ if [istarget "rs6000-*-*"] { return 0 }
+
+ gdb_test "condition \\\$handler_breakpoint_number" "now unconditional"
+ gdb_test "next" "alarm \[(\]+"
+ gdb_test "next" "\[+\]+count"
+ exec sleep 2
+
+ # This time we stop when GDB tries to run the stack dummy.
+ # So it is OK that we do not print the return value from the function.
+ gdb_test "p func1 ()" \
+"Breakpoint \[0-9\]*, handler.*
+The program being debugged stopped while in a function called from GDB"
+ # But we should be able to backtrace...
+ gdb_test "bt" "#0.*handler.*#1.*#2.*main"
+ # ...and continue...
+ gdb_test "continue" "Continuing"
+ # ...and then count should have been incremented
+ gdb_test "p count" "= 5"
+ }
+}
+return 0
projects / binutils-gdb.git / commitdiff