public inbox for gdb-prs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "blarsen at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug record/29721] [gdb, record, aarch64] FAIL: gdb.reverse/solib-precsave.exp: reverse-next third shr1
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2023 14:28:35 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-29721-4717-JJ6NvruCh4@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-29721-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29721

--- Comment #30 from B. Larsen <blarsen at redhat dot com> ---
> Say we assume that they are equal if the target contains an epilogue unwinder, but if not, we're handling things more conservatively.  This kind of fix could be backported to fix the regression that was introduced.

This sounds ok, but I wonder if "handling things more conservatively" will
regress [record/16678](https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16678).
To fix that bug I assumed that we knew the frame ID would be the same
throughout the whole function. If we can't rely on that, how are we supposed to
detect a breakpoint being hit in a recursive call?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2023-01-19 14:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-10-25 13:30 [Bug record/29721] New: " vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-25 16:20 ` [Bug record/29721] " vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-26 11:56 ` blarsen at redhat dot com
2022-10-26 14:16 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-26 14:36 ` blarsen at redhat dot com
2022-10-26 14:43 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-26 14:47 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-27 20:15 ` luis.machado at arm dot com
2022-11-02 14:05 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-02 15:42 ` blarsen at redhat dot com
2022-11-08 16:08 ` blarsen at redhat dot com
2022-11-10 12:07 ` blarsen at redhat dot com
2022-11-10 12:40 ` luis.machado at arm dot com
2022-11-10 14:18 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-10 14:20 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-13 14:57 ` blarsen at redhat dot com
2023-01-16 10:43 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-16 15:58 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-16 16:40 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-16 18:59 ` luis.machado at arm dot com
2023-01-16 19:39 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-16 19:53 ` luis.machado at arm dot com
2023-01-16 19:57 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-17 16:47 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-19 13:42 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-19 13:46 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-19 13:47 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-19 13:56 ` luis.machado at arm dot com
2023-01-19 14:00 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-19 14:14 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-19 14:28 ` blarsen at redhat dot com [this message]
2023-01-19 17:30 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-20  8:57 ` blarsen at redhat dot com

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-29721-4717-JJ6NvruCh4@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org \
    --cc=gdb-prs@sourceware.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).