Re: [PATCH] Fix nested gdb_caching_proc with args; Fix gdb.rocm/ tests

[Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>]

I should have mentioned something here:

On 2025-09-15 22:28, Pedro Alves wrote:

> --- a/gdb/testsuite/lib/cache.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/lib/cache.exp
> @@ -24,26 +24,9 @@ proc ignore_pass { msg } {
>  
>  # Call proc real_name and return the result, while ignoring calls to pass.
>  proc gdb_do_cache_wrap {real_name args} {
> -    if { [info procs save_pass] != "" } {
> -	return [uplevel 2 $real_name]
> +    with_override pass ignore_pass {
> +	return [$real_name {*}$args]
>      }

The previous code was using "uplevel 2" here.  But I'm struggling to see why that is the
right level.

When gdb_do_cache_wrap is called via gdb_caching_proc => gdb_do_cache, that takes us to the scope of
the caller of the gdb_caching_proc, which off hand would seem right.

However, when gdb_do_cache_wrap is called directly by gdb.testsuite/gdb-caching-proc-consistency.exp, it
takes us to ... the caller of test_proc?

So I'm wondering, what could we possibly want to reference from a higher level in gdb_do_cache_wrap
that not having the uplevel in gdb_do_cache_wrap would get wrong?  A caching proc IMO shouldn't be doing
something like taking the name of a variable as argument instead of a value, as then the procedure wouldn't
be guaranteed to be idempotent?  So I dropped the uplevel, and found that that doesn't cause any
testsuite regression.  But maybe I'm missing something.  If I am, it'd be nice to add a testcase for it.

Pedro Alves