From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EC2C3858C5F for ; Sat, 30 Sep 2023 19:48:48 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 7EC2C3858C5F Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1696103327; bh=QToDH0ra/vchKCKJ5leFCQ1WBZ2X/sehm6q31/8yQb0=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=W1I8g6ZF8zW8JCJA9vs2R6Xwrf3hO+8ZahZb9P93AnRo43QQ12ImZvbZ5tpjGkxsW 5kr9is0DXHVRGxPiEGtJr3OrO7ndCaoPwEC0AyJEAhK/smdk/bckNJfZQ9+X/qIOwb kkARY7BtTVO11MRdknizQDewnbsTeKZcCrxhn7G0= Received: from [10.0.0.11] (modemcable238.237-201-24.mc.videotron.ca [24.201.237.238]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C23BF1E092; Sat, 30 Sep 2023 15:48:47 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2023 15:48:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH] [gdb/arm] Only allow closure lookup by address if there are threads displaced-stepping Content-Language: en-US To: Luis Machado , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20230929081503.4014732-1-luis.machado@arm.com> <42caa650-9cca-f908-ba9b-d0a325edb3ad@arm.com> From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: <42caa650-9cca-f908-ba9b-d0a325edb3ad@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,SPF_HELO_PASS,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: >> I don't see anything inherently ARM-specific with the test. Can we have >> it as a general test? > > We could. Though I don't think it would exercise anything useful until some other > target decides it needs to call gdbarch_displaced_step_copy_insn_closure_by_addr directly > (like Arm does). > > For instance, we use disassemble in the testcase to cause the crash because Arm needs to > figure out the thumb state, and we check the situation of the displaced-stepping closure > while at it. > > I'm fine either way though. My view is that we lose nothing if we run it for other arches. And sometimes tests find bugs completely unrelated to what they were initially written to exercise, so there is a small chance that this test can be useful for another arch. Simon