On 12/2/19 3:34 AM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2019-11-24 6:22 a.m., Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> This is just a minor update on the patch
>> since the function SYMBOL_PRINT_NAME was removed with
>> commit 987012b89bce7f6385ed88585547f852a8005a3f
>> I replaced it with sym->print_name (), otherwise the
>> patch is unchanged.
> 
> Hi Bernd,
> 
> Sorry, I had lost this in the mailing list noise.
> 
> I played a bit with the patch and different cases of figure.  I am not able to understand
> the purpose of each of your changes (due to the complexity of that particular code), but
> I didn't find anything that stood out as wrong to me.  Pedro might be able to do a more
> in-depth review of the event handling code.
> 
> If the test tests specifically skipping of inline functions, I'd name it something more
> descriptive than "skip2.exp", maybe "skip-inline.exp"?
> 
> Unfortunately, your test doesn't pass on my computer (gcc 9.2.0), but neither does the
> gdb.base/skip.exp.  I am attaching the gdb.log when running your test, if it can help.
> 
> Simon
> 

Hi Simon,

I only tested that with gcc-4.8, and both test cases worked with that gcc version.

I tried now with gcc-trunk version from a few days ago, and I think I see
what you mean.

skip2.c (now skip-inline.c) can be fixed by removing the assignment
to x in the first line, which is superfluous (and copied from skip.c).
But skip.c cannot be fixed this way.  I only see a chance to allow
the stepping back to main and then to foo happen.

Does this modified test case work for you?



Thanks
Bernd.