public inbox for gdb-cvs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pedro Alves <palves@sourceware.org> To: gdb-cvs@sourceware.org Subject: [binutils-gdb] gdb.base/skip.exp: Don't abuse gdb_test's question support Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 10:15:19 +0000 (GMT) [thread overview] Message-ID: <20220517101519.E3F8B3858D3C@sourceware.org> (raw) https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=d7440bee9ffa6767e704f226ec28b9aa2fb748d6 commit d7440bee9ffa6767e704f226ec28b9aa2fb748d6 Author: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net> Date: Tue May 17 10:25:12 2022 +0100 gdb.base/skip.exp: Don't abuse gdb_test's question support gdb.base/skip.exp abuses gdb_test's support for answering a GDB question to do this: # With gcc 9.2.0 we jump once back to main before entering foo here. # If that happens try to step a second time. gdb_test "step" "foo \\(\\) at.*" "step 3" \ "main \\(\\) at .*\r\n$gdb_prompt " "step" After a patch later in this series, gdb_test will FAIL if GDB does NOT issue the question, so this test would start failing on older GCCs. Switch to using gdb_test_multiple instead. There are three spots in the file that have the same pattern, and they're actually in a sequence of commands that is repeated those 3 times. Factor all that out to a procedure. I don't have gcc 9.2 handy, but I do have gcc 6.5, and that one is affected as well, so update the comment. Change-Id: If0a7e3cdf5191b4eec95ce0c8845c3a4d801c39e Diff: --- gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.exp | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.exp index 7c71bb07a84..e6b660004d9 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.exp +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.exp @@ -122,6 +122,32 @@ with_test_prefix "step after deleting 1" { gdb_test "step" "main \\(\\) at.*" "step 3" } +# Test that we step into foo(), then into bar(), but not into baz(). +proc step_bar_foo_skip_baz {} { + gdb_test "step" "bar \\(\\) at.*" "step 1" + gdb_test "step" ".*" "step 2"; # Return from bar() + + # With at least gcc 6.5.0 and 9.2.0, we jump once back to main + # before entering foo here. If that happens try to step a second + # time. + set stepped_again 0 + gdb_test_multiple "step" "step 3" { + -re -wrap "foo \\(\\) at.*" { + pass $gdb_test_name + } + -re -wrap "main \\(\\) at .*" { + if {!$stepped_again} { + set stepped_again 1 + send_gdb "step\n" + } + exp_continue + } + } + + gdb_test "step" ".*" "step 4"; # Return from foo() + gdb_test "step" "main \\(\\) at.*" "step 5" +} + # Now disable the skiplist entry for skip1.c. We should now # step into foo(), then into bar(), but not into baz(). @@ -136,14 +162,7 @@ with_test_prefix "step after disabling 3" { return } - gdb_test "step" "bar \\(\\) at.*" "step 1" - gdb_test "step" ".*" "step 2"; # Return from bar() - # With gcc 9.2.0 we jump once back to main before entering foo here. - # If that happens try to step a second time. - gdb_test "step" "foo \\(\\) at.*" "step 3" \ - "main \\(\\) at .*\r\n$gdb_prompt " "step" - gdb_test "step" ".*" "step 4"; # Return from foo() - gdb_test "step" "main \\(\\) at.*" "step 5" + step_bar_foo_skip_baz } # Enable skiplist entry 3 and make sure we step over it like before. @@ -254,14 +273,8 @@ with_test_prefix "step using -fu for baz" { gdb_test_no_output "skip disable" gdb_test_no_output "skip enable 7" - gdb_test "step" "bar \\(\\) at.*" "step 1" - gdb_test "step" ".*" "step 2"; # Return from bar() - # With gcc 9.2.0 we jump once back to main before entering foo here. - # If that happens try to step a second time. - gdb_test "step" "foo \\(\\) at.*" "step 3" \ - "main \\(\\) at .*\r\n$gdb_prompt " "step" - gdb_test "step" ".*" "step 4"; # Return from foo() - gdb_test "step" "main \\(\\) at.*" "step 5" + + step_bar_foo_skip_baz } with_test_prefix "step using -rfu for baz" { @@ -271,14 +284,8 @@ with_test_prefix "step using -rfu for baz" { gdb_test_no_output "skip disable" gdb_test_no_output "skip enable 8" - gdb_test "step" "bar \\(\\) at.*" "step 1" - gdb_test "step" ".*" "step 2"; # Return from bar() - # With gcc 9.2.0 we jump once back to main before entering foo here. - # If that happens try to step a second time. - gdb_test "step" "foo \\(\\) at.*" "step 3" \ - "main \\(\\) at .*\r\n$gdb_prompt " "step" - gdb_test "step" ".*" "step 4"; # Return from foo() - gdb_test "step" "main \\(\\) at.*" "step 5" + + step_bar_foo_skip_baz } # Test -fi + -fu.
reply other threads:[~2022-05-17 10:15 UTC|newest] Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20220517101519.E3F8B3858D3C@sourceware.org \ --to=palves@sourceware.org \ --cc=gdb-cvs@sourceware.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).