From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id qHtyD0eGY2PKjRMAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 03 Nov 2022 05:13:43 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 3C1041E124; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 05:13:43 -0400 (EDT) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=d7zbAM+n; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D13281E0D3 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 05:13:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3AEC3858409 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 09:13:41 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A3AEC3858409 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1667466821; bh=wxrRlj5f9gVRe3Tnm6yvGVBjp0OJtXBk6qRksUDZMss=; h=To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=d7zbAM+n7LIcFEYMqzWq5KH2qfH91f9UoHZvYP8AoZbxD2J/ZbOo7htBGuSaEgOI+ rnLivnsB3ZNne54tCgJBISucPOdxEDkPnjg4B58K4wbXC2MoiPFO9klOx6c+v3Z6Or PklkxjHtOZdecZ5kAqfLqGik/XFb07RTmd+ptjss= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B79503858C53 for ; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 09:13:19 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org B79503858C53 Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-497-wYRxZxjEOgCratRZp_FHOg-1; Thu, 03 Nov 2022 05:13:16 -0400 X-MC-Unique: wYRxZxjEOgCratRZp_FHOg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 099F9101A5AD; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 09:13:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fedora.redhat.com (unknown [10.39.194.110]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5237840C2140; Thu, 3 Nov 2022 09:13:15 +0000 (UTC) To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: [PATCH] gdb/testsuite: add KFAILs to gdb.reverse/step-reverse.exp Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2022 10:08:37 +0100 Message-Id: <20221103090836.320197-1-blarsen@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1d743da0-278c-f800-10a0-d6aaa7995a92@simark.ca> References: <1d743da0-278c-f800-10a0-d6aaa7995a92@simark.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; x-default=true X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Bruno Larsen via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Bruno Larsen Cc: simark@simark.ca Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > I don't know the reverse stuff well, but the explanation makes sense. > Do you plan on tackling this bug? If not, can you file a bug and add a > kfail? Sure, I do plan on tackling this at some point, but I don't know when that will be, so I filed the bug, and this is the patch to add the KFAILs, thoughts? --- Recent changes to gdb.reverse/step-reverse.exp revealed the latent bug PR record/29745, where we can't skip one funcion forward if we're using native-gdbserver. This commit just adds kfails to the test. Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29745 --- gdb/testsuite/gdb.reverse/step-reverse.exp | 15 +++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.reverse/step-reverse.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.reverse/step-reverse.exp index c28e1f6db4f..37e80a7d337 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.reverse/step-reverse.exp +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.reverse/step-reverse.exp @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ if { [prepare_for_testing "failed to prepare" $testfile $srcfile] } { } runto_main +set using_gdbserver [target_is_gdbserver] if [supports_process_record] { # Activate process record/replay @@ -273,11 +274,25 @@ if { "$step_out" == 1 } { # Step forward over recursion again so we can test stepping over calls # inside the recursion itself. gdb_test_no_output "set exec-dir forward" "forward again to test recursion" +if {$using_gdbserver} { + # gdbserver doesn't record the change of return pointer, so we can't + # next forward over functions. + setup_kfail gdb/29745 *-*-* +} gdb_test "next" "NEXT OVER THIS CALL.*" "reverse next over recursion again" gdb_test_no_output "set exec-dir reverse" "reverse again to test recursion" +if {$using_gdbserver} { + # Because of the above mentioned KFAIL, the inferior is now out of sync + setup_kfail gdb/29745 *-*-* +} gdb_test "step" ".*EXIT RECURSIVE FUNCTION.*" "enter recursive function" set seen_recursive_call 0 +if {$using_gdbserver} { + # Because of the above mentioned KFAIL, the inferior is now out of sync + # The fail state below will resync the inferior. + setup_kfail gdb/29745 *-*-* +} gdb_test_multiple "next" "step over recursion inside the recursion" { -re -wrap ".*RECURSIVE CALL.*" { incr seen_recursive_call -- 2.37.3