From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 375AC3858C5F; Thu, 16 Feb 2023 14:52:27 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 375AC3858C5F
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org;
	s=default; t=1676559147;
	bh=sfJfsz0vsvEgT6ENNJncjuKT9y2GjCTT4Y2OSHLkq/A=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=OPE68sJ+Dx9AobD5MybUDb1q463Ivya0uhw/6nHo7cX6S4J1E5asn4CC4k5KQsj2s
	 lLMMMKLdm6z+rw5MdibX6fGk2jvo0TicArSvbHs0Mn980l2orsf7be1oE7OJ8jnNYW
	 DNGfQyyuP/HToDxmNQlCgGOb/sspZti8uqA6fVnA=
From: "markus.t.metzger at intel dot com"
 <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug record/30073] [intel Efficient-core] FAIL:
 gdb.btrace/exception.exp: flat (pattern 1)
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 14:52:27 +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: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: markus.t.metzger at intel 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: <bug-30073-4717-tVLQEovNpy@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-30073-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-30073-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gdb-prs.sourceware.org>

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D30073

--- Comment #9 from Markus Metzger <markus.t.metzger at intel dot com> ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #8)
> (In reply to Markus Metzger from comment #7)
> > (In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #6)
> >=20
> > > record btrace
> > > continue
> > > maint btrace packet-history 0, +100
> > > #record function-call-history 1
> > > #record function-call-history /c 1
> >=20
> > The maintenance command doesn't fetch the trace itself.  We'd need some
> > other record command before it, e.g. 'info record' or one of the two
> > commented-out commands.
>=20
> With the two commented out commands added back, I have:
> ...
> +continue
>=20
> Breakpoint 3, main () at
> /data/vries/gdb/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.btrace/exception.cc:59
> 59        return ret; /* bp.2  */
> +record function-call-history 1
> 1       main()
> +record function-call-history /c 1
> 1       main()
> +maint btrace packet-history 0, +100
> 0       begin: 0x40076d, end: 0x400779
> ...

Thanks.  Looks like you're not getting any BTS records, either.  The one en=
try
is the artificial record GDB adds to reach the current PC.

It looks like a kernel issue to me.  I'm discussing it with Intel kernel
developers.  This might take a bit of time.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=