Re: [PATCHv2] gdb/testsuite: add KFAILs to gdb.reverse/step-reverse.exp

[Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca>]

On 11/3/22 10:30, Bruno Larsen wrote:
> On 03/11/2022 14:06, Simon Marchi wrote:
>>
>> On 11/3/22 05:08, Bruno Larsen wrote:
>>>> I don't know the reverse stuff well, but the explanation makes sense.
>>>> Do you plan on tackling this bug?  If not, can you file a bug and add a
>>>> kfail?
>>> Sure, I do plan on tackling this at some point, but I don't know when
>>> that will be, so I filed the bug, and this is the patch to add the
>>> KFAILs, thoughts?
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Recent changes to gdb.reverse/step-reverse.exp revealed the latent bug
>>> PR record/29745, where we can't skip one funcion forward if we're using
>>> native-gdbserver. This commit just adds kfails to the test.
>>>
>>> Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29745
>>> ---
>>>   gdb/testsuite/gdb.reverse/step-reverse.exp | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>>   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.reverse/step-reverse.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.reverse/step-reverse.exp
>>> index c28e1f6db4f..37e80a7d337 100644
>>> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.reverse/step-reverse.exp
>>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.reverse/step-reverse.exp
>>> @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ if { [prepare_for_testing "failed to prepare" $testfile $srcfile] } {
>>>   }
>>>     runto_main
>>> +set using_gdbserver [target_is_gdbserver]
>>>     if [supports_process_record] {
>>>       # Activate process record/replay
>>> @@ -273,11 +274,25 @@ if { "$step_out" == 1 } {
>>>   # Step forward over recursion again so we can test stepping over calls
>>>   # inside the recursion itself.
>>>   gdb_test_no_output "set exec-dir forward" "forward again to test recursion"
>>> +if {$using_gdbserver} {
>>> +    # gdbserver doesn't record the change of return pointer, so we can't
>>> +    # next forward over functions.
>>> +    setup_kfail gdb/29745 *-*-*
>> There's one thing bugging me in your explanation: as far as I know,
>> gdbserver does any recording, with the built-in GDB recorder (i.e. not
>> btrace).  So we probably shouldn't say "gdbserver doesn't record", as
>> it's not meant to record in the first place.  That would mean the
>> problem is within GDB, when using the remote target.  And the check for
>> the kfail should therefore use gdb_is_target_remote instead of
>> target_is_gdbserver.
> 
> That makes sense. This is my first time working with gdbserver, so everything here is news to me.  Updated version:
> 
> ---
> 
>     Recent changes to gdb.reverse/step-reverse.exp revealed the latent bug
>     PR record/29745, where we can't skip one funcion forward if we're using
>     native-gdbserver. This commit just adds kfails to the test.
> 
>     Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29745

Thanks:

Approved-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com>

Simon