Re: [PATCH] [gdb] Fix missing print frame when stepping out of function

[Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>]

On 3/19/26 7:03 PM, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> I think that it is worth at least investigating altering
>> step_start_function to track the actual function, including inline
>> functions, this seems like it would be a better fix.  But if not then at
>> least we'll understand why it's not the right solution.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> just a small update on this.
> 
> I've given this a try ( https://github.com/vries/gdb/tree/gdb/fix- 
> missing-print-frame-when-stepping-out-of-function-2 ) and ran into 
> trouble with just one test-case, gdb.opt/inline-cmds.exp ).
> 
> Basically, with current gdb we have:
> ...
> 63      x = 7;
> (gdb) s
> 64      y = 8; /* set mi break here */
> (gdb) s
> 66      result = func1 ();
> (gdb)
> ...
> and with the patch series posted above:
> ...
> 63      x = 7;
> (gdb) s
> 64      y = 8; /* set mi break here */
> (gdb) s
> main () at /data/vries/gdb/leap-16-0/build/../../src/gdb/testsuite/ 
> gdb.opt/inline-cmds.c:66
> 66      result = func1 ();
> (gdb)
> ...
> 
> There is some code somewhere that allows entry into an inline function 
> to happen in two steps, even if the pc stays the same inbetween, and 
> that code seems to interact with the solution in the patch series.
> 
> I'll take a further look tomorrow.

Hi Andrew,

this estimate turned out to be somewhat optimistic, but I've taken a 
look today, and submitted a v2 with the RFC tag ( 
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2026-March/226269.html ), 
containing the analysis of the regression mentioned above.

Thanks,
- Tom