public inbox for gdb-prs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "vries at gcc dot gnu.org" <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 14:14:42 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-29721-4717-XaoFOwVXYm@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 #29 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I've submitted a patch series here (
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2023-January/195920.html ) that
contains a fix for PR30011. With that fix, this PR no longer triggers.
The remaining question for me is whether PR30011 and this PR are duplicates.
Put differently, is there something we can do in gdb to deal with the situation
that the frame id for first and last insn in a function are not necessarily
equal.
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.
Bruno, any comment?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-19 14:14 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 [this message]
2023-01-19 14:28 ` blarsen at redhat dot com
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-XaoFOwVXYm@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).