From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 047003858C53 for ; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:56:35 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 047003858C53 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=us.ibm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=us.ibm.com Received: from pps.filterd (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 30JGMwwL010018; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:56:35 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=message-id : from : to : cc : date : in-reply-to : references : content-type : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : subject; s=pp1; bh=vQFPXsziklKfSmrQI29/PsZ6xVwdtGm5OLbHTxPU1so=; b=pHBJprXYrpu7jyP8UvVEV8yqKwOciq+7vtnsLsZVLbDiZoxG1W4dHti7Bipo6dG68np7 7fV1HgDv2Tp1w01f1fXlrKPGW6IW2Sum4qXR5WFGXg+f8HRhdvkP9pmKqdq781awXFuD aLpTgS5FEcf8//p7g9jF4ocmUF6B3yaRnmuT/LIaKJHOebAmekOXOwOSJ/8lFl13mi1q PZSnGaSOAEQ/IEVlfsoRsk5yqMpExg+p/z76RhXZ30xYFmUhiaGnK0sb2BxiriUYCVVk XHFahEW33xdqFqDLbSOSdMQtdiI0IjEtnOQsRBABPRs52arlq+OI+66SwiZCGKnIN8a0 /w== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3n79b7gtud-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:56:34 +0000 Received: from m0098404.ppops.net (m0098404.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 30JGahZx029859; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:56:34 GMT Received: from ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (aa.5b.37a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.55.91.170]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3n79b7gtu2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:56:34 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 30JFOkSU027632; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:56:33 GMT Received: from smtprelay02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com ([9.208.129.120]) by ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3n3m185bha-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:56:33 +0000 Received: from smtpav02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [10.241.53.101]) by smtprelay02.wdc07v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 30JGuVL23211928 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:56:32 GMT Received: from smtpav02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 965BB5805A; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:56:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B2645805E; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:56:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-e362e14c-2378-11b2-a85c-87d605f3c641.ibm.com (unknown [9.163.12.142]) by smtpav02.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Jan 2023 16:56:31 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: From: Carl Love To: Bruno Larsen , Tom de Vries , Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: cel@us.ibm.com Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 08:56:30 -0800 In-Reply-To: <7a494157-494f-6adf-d533-bf373b0f054f@redhat.com> References: <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> <78b464a1-e32e-c3da-85e4-7bfc322cc29f@redhat.com> <7848e9858b54e33e399b871774ffc0b5058c1736.camel@us.ibm.com> <65d44121-65f7-a212-79ec-07ce53c15ecb@suse.de> <9fe94c0979cb40979b0dea7693a901c2d9f66164.camel@us.ibm.com> <59417813-eb4a-baf8-4e5d-e225d6732f71@suse.de> <7a494157-494f-6adf-d533-bf373b0f054f@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-18.el8) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: XGxZWp_7g_px5Y4zb9T0MakChQsSU5ZI X-Proofpoint-GUID: SOGf_LL7F6QpiEuY1mocksRv2cwlYp7f Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2 version 2] fix for gdb.reverse/finish-precsave.exp and gdb.reverse/finish-reverse.exp X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.219,Aquarius:18.0.930,Hydra:6.0.562,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2023-01-19_09,2023-01-19_01,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2212070000 definitions=main-2301190134 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,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: Bruno: On Thu, 2023-01-19 at 09:04 +0100, Bruno Larsen wrote: > On 18/01/2023 23:26, Carl Love wrote: > > Not sure what more I can do at this point. If you have some time, > > can > > you take a look at the failures on your machine and let me know > > what > > you are seeing. Maybe we can figure out what is going on. > > > > Perhaps Bruno can also check to see if the two tests were ran on > > his > > machine. If not, hopefully the info above will help Bruno to get > > the > > tests to run on his machine and we can see if they fail there as > > well. > > I just tried running the gdb.btrace/rn-dl-bind.exp and also got 9 > passes, so I cant help there, but I did miss the 2 failures in > tailcall.exp; here's the relevant log: > > Breakpoint 1, main () at tailcall.c:37 > 38 answer += 1; > (gdb) PASS: gdb.btrace/tailcall.exp: next.1 > reverse-next > foo () at tailcall.c:29 > 29 return bar (); > (gdb) FAIL: gdb.btrace/tailcall.exp: reverse-next.1 > step > bar () at tailcall.c:24 > 24 } > (gdb) FAIL: gdb.btrace/tailcall.exp: step.1 > finish > > Some extra context, line 37 (the line that is being "undone" by > reverse-next) has a call to foo, which calls bar. Whats going on here > is > that we're hitting the step-resume breakpoint when exiting the bar > call, > instead of when exiting the foo call.Has a very similar smell to the > type of bug I fixed in commit > 1f3e37e057e876b37db49dbd8ed5ca22c33f6772, > but that fix itself might not work because of tailcall optimizations. > > If you have the test compiled, you can trigger the bug using regular > record, no need to use btrace specifically. Thanks, I went back and tried the tailcall again. I was able to get it to generate 2 fails on my laptop with just the X86 patch. Not sure why I didn't see that before, maybe I had a typo??? I did note that git on my laptop seems to act a bit weird so maybe that was an issue?? I am having to double check the code changes after running git to make sure it applied the changes correctly. Not sure why I didn't see the passes in the full regression suite either. Anyway, I am looking to see if I can figure out what the regression issue is for this test. The gdb.btrace/rn-dl-bind.exp test still runs fine with 9 passes. Carl