From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 36245 invoked by alias); 3 Dec 2019 04:22:22 -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 36237 invoked by uid 89); 3 Dec 2019 04:22:22 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Dec 2019 04:22:20 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [192.222.164.54]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 98F321E092; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 23:22:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCHv5] Make "skip" work on inline frames To: Bernd Edlinger , Pedro Alves , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <8fc93db4-8906-4f4e-53f4-225ebfa0115d@simark.ca> <215bbf9c-4c3c-5cd2-c657-51aa7262f234@simark.ca> <8d5b880e-12f2-11ac-1bfe-82941f64369b@simark.ca> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 04:22:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-12/txt/msg00078.txt.bz2 On 2019-12-02 11:47 a.m., Bernd Edlinger wrote: > I only tested that with gcc-4.8, and both test cases worked with that gcc version. > > I tried now with gcc-trunk version from a few days ago, and I think I see > what you mean. > > skip2.c (now skip-inline.c) can be fixed by removing the assignment > to x in the first line, which is superfluous (and copied from skip.c). > But skip.c cannot be fixed this way. I only see a chance to allow > the stepping back to main and then to foo happen. > > Does this modified test case work for you? Yes, I confirm it passes now, thanks! Simon