From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id DE5B03858C54; Fri, 20 Jan 2023 08:57:12 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org DE5B03858C54 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1674205032; bh=iGzaHctdNgjDhiFfuqyJJ56disX8onCi29cTVf8I1UA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=ySjJOIX0Lol0v5w9N0U0v7zm4RTXDI29AsqpbSxQkGZXua3jtmupINPyry/2Zzv7U gx9qw13w4/pECBG2yuU475lYdh4KXCTUFemoUuvrv2sMDuf9PoGhPgkhwpY0tvxGA1 I8W1tpL3i8gjqKTeir28uPK5SEScnjwVg1AmfimI= From: "blarsen at redhat dot com" To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug record/29721] [gdb, record, aarch64] FAIL: gdb.reverse/solib-precsave.exp: reverse-next third shr1 Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2023 08:57:12 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb X-Bugzilla-Component: record X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: blarsen at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D29721 --- Comment #32 from B. Larsen --- > I think the following cases can be distinguished: > - cfi info present, assume frame ID's accurate, no special handling needed > - cfi info not present, but target has an epilogue unwinder , assume frame > ID's accurate, no special handling needed > - cfi info not present, no epilogue unwinder. Special handling needed, > but no need to worry about breaking handling of recursive function, > because it's already broken, and the special handling intends to fix it. >=20 > My naive idea on how to approach this was to instead of doing a step-resu= me > breakpoint at the last insn and resume, do first a single step back, and > then insert the step-resume breakpoint and resume. This will already fix > the aarch64 case. There may be cases where this gives the wrong answer, = but > AFAIU those cases are broken anyway. Ah ok, sounds like a good naive approach. My thought was avoiding the previ= ous naive solution! --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=