From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7472 invoked by alias); 14 Apr 2016 16:31:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 7457 invoked by uid 89); 14 Apr 2016 16:31:05 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Break, risk X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:30:55 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-05.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.43]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1aqkAO-0005Dd-VL from Luis_Gustavo@mentor.com ; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 09:30:53 -0700 Received: from [172.30.5.188] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-05.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Thu, 14 Apr 2016 09:30:52 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] Break at each iteration for breakpoints placed on a while statement References: <20150818235334.1afb0c85@pinnacle.lan> <86zit9nzac.fsf@gmail.com> To: Yao Qi , , Kevin Buettner CC: From: Luis Machado Reply-To: Luis Machado Message-ID: <570FC5BB.6060103@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:31:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <86zit9nzac.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-04/txt/msg00335.txt.bz2 On 04/04/2016 10:56 AM, Yao Qi wrote: > Kevin Buettner writes: > >> This patch set changes the current behavior of breakpoints placed on >> while loops. (It actually restores past behavior; see below.) > > Hi Pedro, > your recent change https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-03/msg00462.html > triggers a test failure in gdb.base/jit.exp on arm-linux that breakpoint > on the loop "WAIT_FOR_GDB" isn't hit. The problem is also found by > buildbot, https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-testers/2016-q1/msg10203.html > > The problem is what this patch series is trying to fix, so I think we > do need this patch series. Do you plan to review them? (I ask you this > because you gave comments to one of these patches) or I can review > them if you don't have cycles. > Thinking about the series, isn't this problem related to the compiler optimizing things and/or presenting an imprecise addr/line information as opposed to GDB doing the wrong thing. Just wondering if working around the compiler is the best choice or if we risk breaking something else depending on the way code is output in some cases.