RE: [PATCH 2/2 ver 7] Fix reverse stepping multiple contiguous PC ranges over the line table.

[Carl Love via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>]

Guinevere:

On Tue, 2023-08-08 at 16:14 +0200, Guinevere Larsen wrote:
> >      infrun_debug_printf ("keep going");
> > +
> > +  if (execution_direction == EXEC_REVERSE)
> > +    {
> > +      CORE_ADDR stop_pc = ecs->event_thread->stop_pc ();
> > +
> > +      /* Make sure the stop_pc is set to the beginning of the
> > line.  */
> > +      if (stop_pc != ecs->event_thread->control.step_range_start)
> > +     {
> > +       stop_pc = update_line_range_start (stop_pc, ecs);
> > +       ecs->event_thread->control.step_range_start = stop_pc;
> pretty small nit, but I think it is better to just use
> 
> ecs->event_thread->control.step_range_start
>      = update_line_range_start (stop_pc, ecs);
> 
> Just because it is kind of weird, to see the step_range_start being
> set 
> to stop pc, and made me do a double take :)
> 

Yea, I may have done it like that to make it easier to print the new
stop_pc value when developing the patch.  Honestly, at this point I
don't recall for sure.  Anyway, I updated the code as follows:

  if (execution_direction == EXEC_REVERSE)
    {
      CORE_ADDR stop_pc = ecs->event_thread->stop_pc ();

      /* Make sure the stop_pc is set to the beginning of the line.  */
      if (stop_pc != ecs->event_thread->control.step_range_start)
        ecs->event_thread->control.step_range_start
          = update_line_range_start (stop_pc, ecs);
    }

  keep_going (ecs);

I made the change locally and will include it in any future
versions/commits.  Not sure it is worth sending out a new version with
the change at the moment.  Lets see if I get any additional comments
from the community first.  Thanks for mentioning that.

                  Carl