From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm1-f44.google.com (mail-wm1-f44.google.com [209.85.128.44]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A276C3858D1E for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 18:37:22 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org A276C3858D1E Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=palves.net Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-wm1-f44.google.com with SMTP id f12-20020a7bc8cc000000b003daf6b2f9b9so13467731wml.3 for ; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 10:37:22 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version :user-agent:date:message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=HxMfxa3JxjrJHQaelTCJ6uvPU0s03fFk/y0P3KIOlo0=; b=bxUWe3EfkKune071ppgH3DrUDI2IPVokrIySWtt8sqALfRpizCmNGVPtcJsIbZiuOe Ja7ixpyf1Nzcjz/FYHPp1vDysx/Gq/MHNYDLe3GEvN7xkLZr7/YNTLvu5CUYEhAoA9m5 GsgfL8AS6UymBWa6vCxroWHObxPSP8qtE18z8fddy/NJ2YLQKov3IoLaDR4Zlm1Hfjyu IhOogRRK7TiiSYn+9rUeG3A+xB6LOS77s8ICgZcjZfewC85WKYF/MpPo+A9kWeM+YzIf qCxN5wHvPmp18NZAk/L+Zml85BMc3o+aG9hIuhNiMu25O/uFVfAoTLSFwUW3aevVcG8x BjWw== X-Gm-Message-State: AFqh2kpuSpzPQcndJ2ebqPnZjkxBP8R/Mu4opZp8z7YneW2+cDIziNxE cMDICmdeHZA8gxi3fQ8s91oZiLGXbYeeEg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMrXdXto8h0R42x7kypE410bCv5vnih19wcroQVWGmHiOy7AiYDpiwu5P6NSVNHTfkHNRZHsVfA6FA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3b84:b0:3da:fd7c:98b3 with SMTP id n4-20020a05600c3b8400b003dafd7c98b3mr28697412wms.25.1674585441527; Tue, 24 Jan 2023 10:37:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f92b:9e00::1fe? ([2001:8a0:f92b:9e00::1fe]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id hu30-20020a05600ca29e00b003db0659c454sm3119355wmb.32.2023.01.24.10.37.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Jan 2023 10:37:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2 version 3] fix for gdb.reverse/finish-precsave.exp and gdb.reverse/finish-reverse.exp To: Carl Love , Bruno Larsen , Ulrich Weigand , "will_schmidt@vnet.ibm.com" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: Luis Machado References: <89331c26795e3f7743e1e068dce43b3c2dd53008.camel@us.ibm.com> <071f24ecf9b3a2bbbe8fee7db77492eb55c5f3ff.camel@us.ibm.com> <1d9b21914354bef6a290ac30673741e722e11757.camel@de.ibm.com> <3e3c9c40f07ab01c79fe10915e76ffa187c42ad9.camel@us.ibm.com> <122f5d2d3db9ef1979b0f8da927d005f32bba82c.camel@us.ibm.com> <011768e8-2b76-f8ed-1174-fbaa020b15e7@redhat.com> <58cebd1a-7883-fbc6-ac94-c67293f8fc8d@redhat.com> <5e5dc4a49aa8feb370419a1efecf277673b7dfc7.camel@us.ibm.com> <610d5f171d5f4baeb94887217e69d0e6d70e9d66.camel@us.ibm.com> <873eb58a-a6ab-08b2-0827-ca6e0c8088ae@palves.net> <664fddbf66d61e7573ccbc0f107f428ee6e1410c.camel@us.ibm.com> From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <190a9fe9-4754-305e-0cba-229fef66b8b8@palves.net> Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 18:37:20 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <664fddbf66d61e7573ccbc0f107f428ee6e1410c.camel@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On 2023-01-24 3:51 p.m., Carl Love wrote: > On Tue, 2023-01-24 at 14:08 +0000, Pedro Alves wrote: >> Wait. That right there sounds bogus. The source line looks like: >> >> func1 (); func2 (); > > My bad, I didn't catch that you were implying func1 and func2 as being > on the same source line. There is an existing bugzilla for the case of > multiple executable statements on the same line. > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28426 > > I have worked with Luis Machado on a patch to > address that issue. We have posted a few versions of the patch but it > still needs some work for finish. I wanted to get back to that patch > once the reverse-finish issue is done. > > I need to spend some more time looking at the rest of your response to > understand everything you are talking about. That said, my first read > looked like the issue in the bugzilla I mentioned. The patch Luis and > I have for addressing multiple statements on the same line applies on > top of the X86 and PowerPC reverse-finish patches. You should fix the reverse-stepping multiple statements issue first, and then the reverse-finish problems go away, you won't need that patch any more.