On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 09:42:16 +0100, Metzger, Markus T wrote:
> We store the frame_id of the current frame and do a single-step.  
> Then we try to detect stepping into a subroutine by unwinding
> the stack frames and comparing the frame_id's with our stored
> frame_id.

OK, understood now.

In fact the time you change btinfo->replay you also change register contents.
Therefore the registers_changed_ptid() call is there right.

For the frame_id change one could also provide mapping of old frame_id to new
frame_id in frame_id_eq() but that is worse than just re-setting it.


> Do you have a better idea?

I agree in general.  Just:

Rather than get_current_frame_nocheck I find safer to just temporarily switch
off the executing flag.  There are many other checks which make sense which
were omitted.

Calling set_step_info seems needlessly intrusive to me, there is no need to
re-set tp->current_symtab + tp->current_line.  Despite in the moment of
record_btrace_start_replaying() I see step_frame_id should be the current
frame id it does not have to be.  Such as when we reverse-continue, it will be
null_frame_id.

The attached patch(es) is on top of yours.

I still believe inferior should resume + wait if it changes its PC.

I am again not sure if the patch passes without FAILs due to my BTS hardware.


Thanks,
Jan