Re: [PATCH 2/2 version 2] fix for gdb.reverse/finish-precsave.exp and gdb.reverse/finish-reverse.exp

Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches
2023-01-18T10:55:55Z

On 1/17/23 20:31, Carl Love wrote:
> Tom:
>
> On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 18:14 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On 1/17/23 18:03, Carl Love wrote:
>>> Tom:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2023-01-17 at 17:55 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
>>>> AFAICT, this has been committed just now.
>>>>
>>>> I'm having difficulty finding an approval, did it happen maybe
>>>> offlist?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> - Tom
>>>
>>> I just committed it based on Bruno's reply.
>>>
>>> > The patch has been tested on X86 and PowerPC with no
>>> regressions.
>>>
>>> I will reiterate that I don't know much about PPC, so the best
>>> I can do
>>> is check for style and tests, but apart from a few minor nits
>>> inlined,
>>> it looks ok
>>>
>>> Tested-By: Bruno Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com>
>>>
>>> I thought that was an approval to commit. Is it not?
>>
>> Hi Carl,
>>
>> sorry, AFAIU it's not. Bruno has been helpfully reviewing your
>> patch,
>> but AFAIK he cannot approve it.
>>
>> This is an easy mistake to make though, given the used formulation,
>> it's
>> not the first time it happened, and it's one of the reasons we're
>> trying
>> to move towards replying with the Approved-By tag to make approval
>> more
>> formal, explicit and unambiguous.
>>
>> FYI, I'm working my way toward reviewing these patches, and have
>> regained access to my usual powerpc machine, so I'll try to
>> reproduce
>> the issue you're seeing.
>
> OK, thanks for the clarification on the process. In the past, I have
> had people explicitly state in their reply that they could not approve
> a patch but were just reviewing and commenting on it.
>
> I will be sure to look for the "Approved-By tag" in the future. Sorry
> for the mistake.
>
> Please let me know if you need me to revert the patch, make some fixes,
> or?

I've run into regressions due to the first patch:
...
FAIL: gdb.btrace/rn-dl-bind.exp: test: reverse-next
FAIL: gdb.btrace/tailcall.exp: reverse-next.1
FAIL: gdb.btrace/tailcall.exp: step.1
...

So, please revert both.

Thanks,
- Tom