From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-f53.google.com (mail-wr1-f53.google.com [209.85.221.53]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97F673856DEB for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 15:32:51 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 97F673856DEB Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=palves.net Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-wr1-f53.google.com with SMTP id o8so7620477wro.3 for ; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 08:32:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:references:from:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=vu36MOlY/9o3PHrUhNkvu9Y5LEFI6g3LOGoq5pir9K0=; b=ekqAVNQke9EvINq65l1gIZT86sBnj1z6WSenLPA79LBX2rcO0Lvfc9vtnMiSrYnim2 JBTGzG0LcfCuC7OcRL9Y+We+QPqpEyLP1zI/8sp1OvuR44C/uTQqb/5LE78NrH4i2Hy9 MnbNOkL75IQGrbdBndNBbjMavcgghCPEvWXS4692EiVfzHTh6M0ZSff9kViune3tYenT ztinx2Ctwkhvy5FA0tFPnLQzjLOBZArCXJ49cgSLm/uU6ia/H9T7A5pS4IQfECB9ruLH 1Nuy9Jx3q7jN5NNkgElNO+Y9uPU9fXxTYBhOd2rnggTXSHjBXJk2npTjpe+7FYCv4Ho8 6gGQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+SitXYaJ+KykUueTPsd+1BNBVe1SPh8Ht5mAEHExh0scVBHJT4 ofjjRqrvyVU2uQlSlfq0hLI+0WT0+F0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1vAWjl63P7kaYrFnhXe5LAXG4Rg7UHAQzeCNi7EfuBAip9m5Emh4DhaO2ma8y5GPUyWjVJqyw== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4708:0:b0:215:d1fa:1b9e with SMTP id y8-20020a5d4708000000b00215d1fa1b9emr446607wrq.202.1655134370356; Mon, 13 Jun 2022 08:32:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2001:8a0:f924:2600:209d:85e2:409e:8726? ([2001:8a0:f924:2600:209d:85e2:409e:8726]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m3-20020a7bcf23000000b0039c7dbafa7asm13054064wmg.19.2022.06.13.08.32.49 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 13 Jun 2022 08:32:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 16:32:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/14] Change gdb.base/skip-solib.exp deal with lack of epilogue information Content-Language: en-US To: Bruno Larsen , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20220526151041.23223-1-blarsen@redhat.com> <20220526151041.23223-3-blarsen@redhat.com> <23a15847-a4f5-d25b-3477-a03b5942eb21@redhat.com> From: Pedro Alves In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, BODY_8BITS, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN, FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2022 15:33:03 -0000 On 2022-06-09 19:55, Bruno Larsen wrote: > > On 6/9/22 15:25, Pedro Alves wrote: >>>> I think that we can use that to write a caching proc like: >>>> >>>>    # Return true if the compiler emits line information associating prologue insns with >>>>    # the function's closing brace.  Return false if not, meaning the prologue >>>>    # associates prologue instructions with function's last line with a statement. >>>> >>>>    gdb_caching_proc have_prologue_line_info { >>>>        use gdb_simple_compile the simple main program from above >>>>              use "info line 5", and return false if we get "out of range", otherwise return true. >>>>    } >>>> >>> >>> This sounds like a good idea, I would only change the default behavior to returning false, unless we saw specifically "start at address.*and ends at". >> >> ... >> >>> This would make GDB changes more pronounced, as GCC would start having different results. >> >> Note sure what you mean here. >> > > I meant that if something changes in GDB and the epilogue detection fails, making gcc's test result different would be easier to detect than making clang's results different. I see. Sounds fine.