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

Carl Love via Gdb-patches
2023-01-18T16:16:36Z

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 <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.

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 <cel@us.ibm.com>
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 <cel@us.ibm.com>
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