From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from omta040.useast.a.cloudfilter.net (omta040.useast.a.cloudfilter.net [44.202.169.39]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4BDD13858D39 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 20:01:05 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 4BDD13858D39 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=tromey.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tromey.com Received: from eig-obgw-6009a.ext.cloudfilter.net ([10.0.30.184]) by cmsmtp with ESMTP id jL2jq1WvPyYOwjPrEqnegt; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 20:01:04 +0000 Received: from box5379.bluehost.com ([162.241.216.53]) by cmsmtp with ESMTPS id jPrDqZzlnDBknjPrDqDoIP; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 20:01:03 +0000 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.4 cv=FtIWQknq c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=650ca0ff a=ApxJNpeYhEAb1aAlGBBbmA==:117 a=ApxJNpeYhEAb1aAlGBBbmA==:17 a=OWjo9vPv0XrRhIrVQ50Ab3nP57M=:19 a=dLZJa+xiwSxG16/P+YVxDGlgEgI=:19 a=zNV7Rl7Rt7sA:10 a=Qbun_eYptAEA:10 a=CZefB35XD-kHlJAzNBgA:9 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tromey.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date:References :Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=ZweQ9/7tecDEZAkEQVIfnbFwQ2GJeDo6LNMySDqaWSs=; b=njoSmwk0c7jiGX6GzYcWFtIFgJ 63QAJU8+rNPmFYK+Z8zEsHuRcC1Gu/voZxvdS0UC5UBwQZEPF7/Ja2O4io25eN7Hj2IRzaY1uQKDQ wX42zcEOF9alq58F702RyJnbN; Received: from 71-211-130-31.hlrn.qwest.net ([71.211.130.31]:55428 helo=murgatroyd) by box5379.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1qjPrD-000E3K-0E; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 14:01:03 -0600 From: Tom Tromey To: Nav Mohammed Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Improve range stepping efficiency (ensure GDB steps over entire line, at once) References: X-Attribution: Tom Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 14:01:01 -0600 In-Reply-To: (Nav Mohammed's message of "Wed, 20 Sep 2023 22:38:26 +0100") Message-ID: <87wmwj5m9u.fsf@tromey.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - box5379.bluehost.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - sourceware.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - tromey.com X-BWhitelist: no X-Source-IP: 71.211.130.31 X-Source-L: No X-Exim-ID: 1qjPrD-000E3K-0E X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: 71-211-130-31.hlrn.qwest.net (murgatroyd) [71.211.130.31]:55428 X-Source-Auth: tom+tromey.com X-Email-Count: 2 X-Org: HG=bhshared;ORG=bluehost; X-Source-Cap: ZWx5bnJvYmk7ZWx5bnJvYmk7Ym94NTM3OS5ibHVlaG9zdC5jb20= X-Local-Domain: yes X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4xfGWcVUew6LqiLz6997O5hMin+zAlpvu00hNhEEaebVQ/sFRWJ0SBMLwiAN0e3B41Pajc9sdK7LTZVMsFCUr0s1oVVRO/blzN6xJCBi/ky4uMxJJqWS6y LMwfCmeHejnKTyCvhUCPAb4A5W2USW7VZ8chB/ia21UPCY3G4n4Vi9MMmpWAaG5SHJyKdVHh7qpe37x4nVKAkxg9xN/DhHsSbdg= X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3019.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,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: >>>>> "Nav" == Nav Mohammed writes: Nav> First time contributor to GDB, please go easy on me. Hi, and welcome to gdb. Thank you for the patch. Nav> I've attached a patch to address this issue, but in all honesty, it's a bit Nav> of a hacky workaround where I've tried to keep the number of changed lines Nav> to an absolute minimum. This is because I'm totally new to the GDB codebase Nav> and I don't want to introduce more bugs by making too many changes. And Nav> given that find_pc_sect_line() is called in quite a few places, I'm Nav> concerned that some of those may *expect* the old behaviour from that Nav> function (return a PC range for a single statement). I have this same fear. I don't really understand this function too well, and I tend to think that somebody else ought to review it. One thought that occurred to me, though, is that it would be good to have a test case. A unit test seems maybe simplest/best, but that seems like a real pain, though, since the function reaches into the minimal symbols, blockvector, etc. Maybe the body of the central loop could be pulled into a separate function and then that could be unit-tested? It would only rely on line tables, and making test line tables seems pretty easy. I wonder if you have any thoughts on how to test it. Tom