Re: [PATCH] Don't pretend infcalls don't set the inferior running (PR gdb/34082)

[Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>]

On 2026-05-08 15:49, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net> writes:
> 
> Pedro> I think the right fix is to stop pretending that infcalls don't set
> Pedro> the target running.  I can't think of a reason we do that.  It really
> Pedro> does run.  Some thoughts:
> 
> This makes total sense to me, and I think it's a good direction.
> However, unfortunately this patch caused some regressions in
> compile.exp.
> 
> Looking at gdb.log it seems like maybe something isn't being updated on
> an error path:
> 
> compile code *(volatile int *) 0 = 0;
> The program being debugged received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault
> while in a function called from GDB.  GDB has restored the context
> to what it was before the call.  To change this behavior use
> "set unwind-on-signal off".  Evaluation of the expression containing
> the function (_gdb_expr) will be abandoned.
> (gdb) PASS: gdb.compile/compile.exp: compile code segfault second
> break 132
> Breakpoint 2 at 0x400521: file /home/tromey/gdb/build/gdb/testsuite/../../../binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.compile/compile.c, line 132.
> (gdb) continue
> Cannot execute this command while the selected thread is running.
> 

Bah, my build doesn't have libcc1 support:

 PASS: gdb.compile/compile.exp: test compile code command without running inferior
 PASS: gdb.compile/compile.exp: test compile command without running inferior
 PASS: gdb.compile/compile.exp: test compile file command without running inferior
 UNTESTED: gdb.compile/compile.exp: compile command not supported (could not find libcc1)

I'll see if I can set that up.

Also sounds like we may be missing an infcall test that exercises this case without
relying on "compile".

> 
> After this point there are several such errors.
> 
> I'm happy to file a bug if you'd prefer.
> 
That'd be great!  I might not be able to look at this until later next week.  Thanks.

Pedro Alves