[binutils-gdb] [gdb/testsuite] Remove gcc/93866 xfail in methods.exp

[binutils-gdb] [gdb/testsuite] Remove gcc/93866 xfail in methods.exp

[Tom de Vries]

https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=70d497007d097a68cbd5e78104619f4f88a09838

commit 70d497007d097a68cbd5e78104619f4f88a09838
Author: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
Date:   Tue Feb 25 08:14:41 2020 +0100

    [gdb/testsuite] Remove gcc/93866 xfail in methods.exp
    
    The test-case gdb.go/methods.exp contains an xfail for PR gcc/93866.
    
    However, that PR has been marked resolved-wontfix, with clarification that the
    gccgo symbol names for methods are correct, even if they're not the same as
    for gc.
    
    Remove the xfail.
    
    Tested on x86_64-linux with gccgo-10.
    
    gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
    
    2020-02-25  Tom de Vries  <tdevries@suse.de>
    
    	PR go/18926
    	* gdb.go/methods.exp: Remove gcc/93866 xfail.

Diff:
---
 gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog          |  5 +++++
 gdb/testsuite/gdb.go/methods.exp | 17 ++++++++---------
 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog
index 6e50785..8ac3804 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2020-02-25  Tom de Vries  <tdevries@suse.de>
+
+	PR go/18926
+	* gdb.go/methods.exp: Remove gcc/93866 xfail.
+
 2020-02-24  Tom de Vries  <tdevries@suse.de>
 
 	PR gdb/25592
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.go/methods.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.go/methods.exp
index b24ee14..0682120 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.go/methods.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.go/methods.exp
@@ -29,8 +29,7 @@ if { [prepare_for_testing "failed to prepare" ${testfile} ${srcfile} {debug go}]
 }
 
 set bp_location1 {main.T.Foo}
-set bp_location2 {main.(*T).Bar}
-set bp_location2_regexp {main.\(\*T\).Bar}
+set bp_location2 {main.T.Bar}
 
 if { [go_runto_main] < 0 } {
     untested "could not run to main"
@@ -49,7 +48,6 @@ gdb_test_multiple "maintenance print symbols" "" {
 	exp_continue
     }
     -re "^\r\n void main.T.Bar\[^\r\n\]*(?=\r\n)" {
-	set found_wrong_bar 2
 	exp_continue
     }
     -re "\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
@@ -86,20 +84,21 @@ if { $found_wrong_bar == 1 } {
     # <1><528>: Abbrev Number: 19 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
     # <529>   DW_AT_name        : main.Bar.pN6_main.T
     setup_xfail "*-*-*"
-} elseif { $found_wrong_bar == 2 } {
+} else {
     # We have with gccgo-8/9/10:
     # <1><6e4>: Abbrev Number: 24 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
     #    <6e5>   DW_AT_name        : main.Bar..1main.T
     #    <6ec>   DW_AT_linkage_name: main.T.Bar
-    # xfail for GCC PR93866
-    setup_xfail "*-*-*"
-} else {
+
     # For reference: with go1.11.13:
     # <1><6c49a>: Abbrev Number: 2 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
     #    <6c49b>   DW_AT_name        : main.(*T).Bar
- }
+
+    # It has been clarified in PR gcc/93866 that it's ok that symbols names
+    # diverge between gc and gccgo.  So, we accept the main.T.Bar as valid.
+}
 
 if { [gdb_breakpoint ${bp_location2} message] } {
-    gdb_test "cont" "Breakpoint .*, ${bp_location2_regexp}.*" \
+    gdb_test "cont" "Breakpoint .*, ${bp_location2}.*" \
 	"going to second breakpoint"
 }