[PATCHv4] Make "skip" work on inline frames

[Bernd Edlinger]

This is just a minor update on the patch
since the function SYMBOL_PRINT_NAME was removed with
commit 987012b89bce7f6385ed88585547f852a8005a3f
I replaced it with sym->print_name (), otherwise the
patch is unchanged.

On 10/31/19 8:19 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
> On 10/31/19 7:00 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 10/31/19 4:53 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>>> On 2019-10-31 12:42 p.m., Pedro Alves wrote:
>>>> On 10/30/19 9:56 PM, Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>>> +if { [prepare_for_testing "failed to prepare" "skip2" \
>>>>> +                          {skip2.c skip1.c } \
>>>>> +                          {debug nowarnings optimize=-O2}] } {
>>>>
>>>> Instead of -O2, could you make this use -O0 (the default),
>>>> and then use attribute((always_inline)) to force inlining? 
>>>> We do that in some tests.  E.g., gdb.opt/inline-locals.c.
>>>
>>> I think that's a good suggestion, but just be aware that there used to be
>>> some problems with always_inline, e.g.:
>>
>> I don't think always_inline changes anything in the debug info special,
>> it just tells the compiler to inline the function even at -O0, which is
>> what we're after.
>>
>>>
>>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13263
>>
>> This one seems to be about attribute((artificial)), and the desire
>> to not step into such functions automatically:
>>
>>    "Given that I marked the function always_inline and artificial, I
>>     was expecting not to step into its body."
>>
>>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12429
>>>
>>
>> This one seems like a generic inlining issue.
>>
>>> I'm not sure if those are still valid.  If they are, it might be more difficult
>>> that expected to use always_inline.
>> I don't think always_inline is anything special compared to inlining
>> because of -O2.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Pedro Alves
>>
> 
> Ah, thanks for that hint!
> 
> always_inline works quite well.
> 
> The debug session started (using gcc 4.8.4) with -O2 -g on the line with "{" in main,
> and with -O0 -g at the first real statement, so I had to remove one step.
> I did not worry about it initially, but now I agree that would have caused trouble.
> 
> 
> I attached both parts of the patch, the fist part unchanged from previous.
> The test case now makes sure to not repeat the names.
> 
> 
> Thanks
> Bernd.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-Check-all-inline-frames-if-they-are-marked-for-skip.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 4454 bytes
Desc:  0001-Check-all-inline-frames-if-they-are-marked-for-skip.patch
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/attachments/20191124/15b5d963/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 0002-Add-a-test-case-for-skip-with-inlined-functions.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 5381 bytes
Desc:  0002-Add-a-test-case-for-skip-with-inlined-functions.patch
URL: <http://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/attachments/20191124/15b5d963/attachment-0001.bin>