From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id yz0CN2QbyGOslRkAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 11:16:36 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id D64751E128; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 11:16:36 -0500 (EST) 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=EGofmtnV; 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=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham 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 7B8341E110 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 11:16:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26D613858418 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:16:35 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 26D613858418 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1674058595; bh=nIoD+Il7ZtCOqNGkPY+QvnLxi5jTCGimqpdSD8vg2ZU=; h=To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=EGofmtnV6jMATlrv8c4mNk4PnuoEYHuSFUhMw7Bv28IquZ/zDdQFrecb/HaPkDD0b 9OVB26yiHNuGD9Wr3mJJRRk9Jja5VjNP3+ndd4g5lk/0x/cRi4nkBF6yVS1VyqSrhX yoRhjeFYb16V7e+iCbBQtDq/T0S571ZJB09sRv4A= Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.158.5]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 257ED3858D28 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:16:15 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 257ED3858D28 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 30IG8vH7013390; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:16:14 GMT Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3n6g1upxrq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:16:14 +0000 Received: from m0098421.ppops.net (m0098421.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 30IFgK37003199; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:16:13 GMT Received: from ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (a.bd.3ea9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.62.189.10]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3n6g1upxr9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:16:13 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02dal.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 30IFCg64005708; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:16:12 GMT Received: from smtprelay05.dal12v.mail.ibm.com ([9.208.130.101]) by ppma02dal.us.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3n3m17p9jg-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:16:12 +0000 Received: from smtpav01.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav01.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [10.241.53.100]) by smtprelay05.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 30IGGBDA6750800 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:16:11 GMT Received: from smtpav01.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFCA758059; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:16:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav01.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37BA358057; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:16:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from li-e362e14c-2378-11b2-a85c-87d605f3c641.ibm.com (unknown [9.163.12.142]) by smtpav01.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 16:16:11 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <9c23488e6cb8afbd84ae653910d9e22027b24d8b.camel@us.ibm.com> To: Tom de Vries , Bruno Larsen , Ulrich Weigand , "will_schmidt@vnet.ibm.com" , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: cel@us.ibm.com Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 08:16:10 -0800 In-Reply-To: References: <89331c26795e3f7743e1e068dce43b3c2dd53008.camel@us.ibm.com> <071f24ecf9b3a2bbbe8fee7db77492eb55c5f3ff.camel@us.ibm.com> <1d9b21914354bef6a290ac30673741e722e11757.camel@de.ibm.com> <3e3c9c40f07ab01c79fe10915e76ffa187c42ad9.camel@us.ibm.com> <122f5d2d3db9ef1979b0f8da927d005f32bba82c.camel@us.ibm.com> <011768e8-2b76-f8ed-1174-fbaa020b15e7@redhat.com> <78b464a1-e32e-c3da-85e4-7bfc322cc29f@redhat.com> <7848e9858b54e33e399b871774ffc0b5058c1736.camel@us.ibm.com> <65d44121-65f7-a212-79ec-07ce53c15ecb@suse.de> <9fe94c0979cb40979b0dea7693a901c2d9f66164.camel@us.ibm.com> <59417813-eb4a-baf8-4e5d-e225d6732f71@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-18.el8) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: w5Xd-R4zw4MJMxZzgpQ3zGN9jDXEn05f X-Proofpoint-GUID: clJCSc_L4YKJsYAfzcsSoxHeG-K5laeK Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/2 version 2] fix for gdb.reverse/finish-precsave.exp and gdb.reverse/finish-reverse.exp X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.219,Aquarius:18.0.923,Hydra:6.0.562,FMLib:17.11.122.1 definitions=2023-01-18_05,2023-01-18_01,2022-06-22_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 priorityscore=1501 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=910 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2212070000 definitions=main-2301180135 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: Carl Love via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Carl Love Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On Wed, 2023-01-18 at 11:55 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote: > 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 > > > > > > > > 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. I reverted both commits. I will take see if I can reproduce the failures you are seeing. ommit b986eec55f460a9c77a0c06ec30d7280293f7a8c (HEAD -> master, origin/master, origin/HEAD) Author: Carl Love Date: Wed Jan 18 11:13:17 2023 -0500 Revert "X86: reverse-finish fix" This reverts commit b22548ddb30bfb167708e82d3bb932461c1b703a. This patch is being reverted since the patch series is causing regressions. commit 15d2b36c5b60795067cec773a66d2627d2bf9266 Author: Carl Love Date: Wed Jan 18 11:12:13 2023 -0500 Revert "PowerPC: fix for gdb.reverse/finish-precsave.exp and gdb.reverse/finish-reverse.exp" This reverts commit 92e07580db6a5572573d5177ca23933064158f89. Reverting patch as the patch series is causing regressions. Carl