[02/16,v2] Refactor follow-fork message printing
Commit Message
On 10/15/2014 9:08 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 09/26/2014 09:14 PM, Breazeal, Don wrote:
>> On 9/26/2014 12:52 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> On 08/21/2014 01:29 AM, Don Breazeal wrote:
>>>> This patch refactors the code that prints messages related to follow-fork
---snip---
> Sorry, I still don't think you're new patch (sent as follow up) is
> an improvement... Having to explain the "Hardcoded 1's" in a
> comment is a red sign to me. :-/
Fair enough.
>
> Could you do a patch that just adds the missing output, and fixes
> fork/vfork without moving the printing code to a separate function?
> For the fork vs vfork issue, doing ' is_vfork ? "vfork" : "fork" ' is
> fine.
Thanks for clarifying the i18n issues for me. The revised patch is
included below, with an updated commit message as well. Is this version OK?
thanks,
--Don
This patch modifies the code that prints attach and detach messages
related to following fork and vfork. The changes include using
target_terminal_ours_for_output instead of target_terminal_ours,
printing "vfork" instead of "fork" for all vfork-related messages,
and using _() for the format strings of all of the messages.
We also add a "detach" message for when a fork parent is detached.
Previously in this case the only message was notification of attaching
to the child. We still do not print any messages when following the
parent and detaching the child (the default). The rationale for this
is that from the user's perspective the new child was never attached.
Note that all of these messages are only printed when 'verbose' is set
or when debugging is turned on.
This is preparatory work for follow-fork and detach-on-fork on
extended-remote Linux targets.
The tests gdb.base/foll-fork.exp and gdb.base/foll-vfork.exp were
modified to check for the new message.
Tested gdb.base/foll-fork.exp and gdb.base/foll-vfork.exp on x64 Ubuntu
Lucid, native only.
gdb/
2014-10-22 Don Breazeal <donb@codesourcery.com>
* infrun.c (follow_fork_inferior): Update fork message printing
to use target_terminal_ours_for_output instead of
target_terminal_ours, to use _() for all format strings, to print
"vfork" instead of "fork" for vforks, and to add a detach message.
(handle_vfork_child_exec_or_exit): Update message printing to use
target_terminal_ours_for_output instead of target_terminal_ours, to
use _() for all format strings, and to fix some formatting.
gdb/testsuite/
2014-10-22 Don Breazeal <donb@codesourcery.com>
* gdb.base/foll-fork.exp (test_follow_fork,
catch_fork_child_follow): Check for updated fork messages emitted
from infrun.c.
* gdb.base/foll-vfork.exp (vfork_parent_follow_through_step,
vfork_parent_follow_to_bp, vfork_and_exec_child_follow_to_main_bp,
vfork_and_exec_child_follow_through_step): Check for updated vfork
messages emitted from infrun.c.
---
gdb/infrun.c | 60
+++++++++++++++++++-------------
gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/foll-fork.exp | 12 ++++--
gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/foll-vfork.exp | 8 ++--
3 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
}
}
@@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ proc vfork_and_exec_child_follow_to_main_bp {} {
set test "continue to bp"
gdb_test_multiple "continue" $test {
- -re "Attaching after.* vfork to.*xecuting new
program.*Breakpoint.*vforked-prog.c:${linenum}.*$gdb_prompt " {
+ -re "Attaching after.* vfork to.*Detaching vfork parent.*xecuting
new program.*Breakpoint.*vforked-prog.c:${linenum}.*$gdb_prompt " {
pass $test
}
}
@@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ proc vfork_and_exec_child_follow_through_step {} {
#
set linenum [gdb_get_line_number "printf(\"Hello from
vforked-prog" ${srcfile2}]
gdb_test_multiple "next" $test {
- -re "Attaching after fork to.*Executing new
program.*Breakpoint.*vforked-prog.c:${linenum}.*$gdb_prompt " {
+ -re "Attaching after vfork to.*Executing new
program.*Breakpoint.*vforked-prog.c:${linenum}.*$gdb_prompt " {
pass "$test"
}
}
Comments
On 10/23/2014 12:46 AM, Breazeal, Don wrote:
> On 10/15/2014 9:08 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> > On 09/26/2014 09:14 PM, Breazeal, Don wrote:
>>> >> On 9/26/2014 12:52 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>> >>> On 08/21/2014 01:29 AM, Don Breazeal wrote:
>>>>> >>>> This patch refactors the code that prints messages related to follow-fork
> ---snip---
>
>> > Sorry, I still don't think you're new patch (sent as follow up) is
>> > an improvement... Having to explain the "Hardcoded 1's" in a
>> > comment is a red sign to me. :-/
> Fair enough.
>
>> >
>> > Could you do a patch that just adds the missing output, and fixes
>> > fork/vfork without moving the printing code to a separate function?
>> > For the fork vs vfork issue, doing ' is_vfork ? "vfork" : "fork" ' is
>> > fine.
> Thanks for clarifying the i18n issues for me. The revised patch is
> included below, with an updated commit message as well. Is this version OK?
Yes, thanks!
Pedro Alves
On 10/24/2014 5:35 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 10/23/2014 12:46 AM, Breazeal, Don wrote:
>> On 10/15/2014 9:08 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>> On 09/26/2014 09:14 PM, Breazeal, Don wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/26/2014 12:52 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 08/21/2014 01:29 AM, Don Breazeal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> This patch refactors the code that prints messages related to follow-fork
>> ---snip---
>>
>>>> Sorry, I still don't think you're new patch (sent as follow up) is
>>>> an improvement... Having to explain the "Hardcoded 1's" in a
>>>> comment is a red sign to me. :-/
>> Fair enough.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Could you do a patch that just adds the missing output, and fixes
>>>> fork/vfork without moving the printing code to a separate function?
>>>> For the fork vs vfork issue, doing ' is_vfork ? "vfork" : "fork" ' is
>>>> fine.
>> Thanks for clarifying the i18n issues for me. The revised patch is
>> included below, with an updated commit message as well. Is this version OK?
>
> Yes, thanks!
>
> Pedro Alves
>
Thanks, this is pushed in.
--Don
@@ -461,10 +461,11 @@ holding the child stopped. Try \"set
detach-on-fork\" or \
if (info_verbose || debug_infrun)
{
- target_terminal_ours ();
+ target_terminal_ours_for_output ();
fprintf_filtered (gdb_stdlog,
- "Detaching after fork from "
- "child process %d.\n",
+ _("Detaching after %s from "
+ "child process %d.\n"),
+ has_vforked ? "vfork" : "fork",
child_pid);
}
}
@@ -549,17 +550,13 @@ holding the child stopped. Try \"set
detach-on-fork\" or \
if (info_verbose || debug_infrun)
{
- target_terminal_ours ();
- if (has_vforked)
- fprintf_filtered (gdb_stdlog,
- _("Attaching after process %d "
- "vfork to child process %d.\n"),
- parent_pid, child_pid);
- else
- fprintf_filtered (gdb_stdlog,
- _("Attaching after process %d "
- "fork to child process %d.\n"),
- parent_pid, child_pid);
+ target_terminal_ours_for_output ();
+ fprintf_filtered (gdb_stdlog,
+ _("Attaching after process %d "
+ "%s to child process %d.\n"),
+ parent_pid,
+ has_vforked ? "vfork" : "fork",
+ child_pid);
}
/* Add the new inferior first, so that the target_detach below
@@ -596,7 +593,18 @@ holding the child stopped. Try \"set
detach-on-fork\" or \
parent_inf->waiting_for_vfork_done = 0;
}
else if (detach_fork)
- target_detach (NULL, 0);
+ {
+ if (info_verbose || debug_infrun)
+ {
+ target_terminal_ours_for_output ();
+ fprintf_filtered (gdb_stdlog,
+ _("Detaching after fork from "
+ "child process %d.\n"),
+ child_pid);
+ }
+
+ target_detach (NULL, 0);
+ }
/* Note that the detach above makes PARENT_INF dangling. */
@@ -930,18 +938,22 @@ handle_vfork_child_exec_or_exit (int exec)
if (debug_infrun || info_verbose)
{
- target_terminal_ours ();
+ target_terminal_ours_for_output ();
if (exec)
- fprintf_filtered (gdb_stdlog,
- "Detaching vfork parent process "
- "%d after child exec.\n",
- inf->vfork_parent->pid);
+ {
+ fprintf_filtered (gdb_stdlog,
+ _("Detaching vfork parent process "
+ "%d after child exec.\n"),
+ inf->vfork_parent->pid);
+ }
else
- fprintf_filtered (gdb_stdlog,
- "Detaching vfork parent process "
- "%d after child exit.\n",
- inf->vfork_parent->pid);
+ {
+ fprintf_filtered (gdb_stdlog,
+ _("Detaching vfork parent process "
+ "%d after child exit.\n"),
+ inf->vfork_parent->pid);
+ }
}
target_detach (NULL, 0);
b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/foll-fork.exp
@@ -115,7 +115,11 @@ proc test_follow_fork { who detach cmd } {
# Set up the output we expect to see after we run.
set expected_re ""
if {$who == "child"} {
- set expected_re "Attaching after.* fork to.*set breakpoint here.*"
+ set expected_re "Attaching after.* fork to.*"
+ if {$detach == "on"} {
+ append expected_re "Detaching after fork from .*"
+ }
+ append expected_re "set breakpoint here.*"
} elseif {$who == "parent" && $detach == "on"} {
set expected_re "Detaching after fork from .*set breakpoint here.*"
} else {
@@ -218,9 +222,9 @@ proc catch_fork_child_follow {} {
"Temporary breakpoint.*, line $bp_after_fork.*" \
"set follow-fork child, tbreak"
- gdb_test "continue" \
- "Attaching after.* fork to.* at .*$bp_after_fork.*" \
- "set follow-fork child, hit tbreak"
+ set expected_re "Attaching after.* fork to.*Detaching after fork from"
+ append expected_re ".* at .*$bp_after_fork.*"
+ gdb_test "continue" $expected_re "set follow-fork child, hit tbreak"
# The parent has been detached; allow time for any output it might
# generate to arrive, so that output doesn't get confused with
b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/foll-vfork.exp
@@ -121,7 +121,7 @@ proc vfork_parent_follow_through_step {} {
set test "step"
gdb_test_multiple "next" $test {
- -re "Detaching after fork from.*if \\(pid == 0\\).*$gdb_prompt " {
+ -re "Detaching after vfork from.*if \\(pid == 0\\).*$gdb_prompt " {
pass $test
}
}
@@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ proc vfork_parent_follow_to_bp {} {
set test "continue to bp"
gdb_test_multiple "continue" $test {
- -re ".*Detaching after fork from child
process.*Breakpoint.*${bp_location}.*$gdb_prompt " {
+ -re ".*Detaching after vfork from child
process.*Breakpoint.*${bp_location}.*$gdb_prompt " {
pass $test