* [testsuite patch] Fix recent GCC FAIL: gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp
@ 2016-10-03 20:35 Jan Kratochvil
2016-10-04 16:08 ` Yao Qi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2016-10-03 20:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1365 bytes --]
Hi,
gcc-6.2.1-2.fc24.x86_64
(gdb) backtrace 10^M
#0 func () at .../gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.c:26^M
#1 <signal handler called>^M
#2 0x0000000000400588 in main () at .../gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.c:31^M
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp: backtrace 10
(gdb) disas/s
Dump of assembler code for function main:
.../gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.c:
30 {
0x000000000040057f <+0>: push %rbp
0x0000000000400580 <+1>: mov %rsp,%rbp
31 setup ();
0x0000000000400583 <+4>: callq 0x400590 <setup>
=> 0x0000000000400588 <+9>: mov $0x0,%eax
32 }
0x000000000040058d <+14>: pop %rbp
0x000000000040058e <+15>: retq
End of assembler dump.
The two attached patch chunks each fixes the FAIL on its own.
The .exp patch is an obvious typo fix I think. The regex was written to
accept "ADDR in main" and I find it OK as checking .debug_line validity is not
the purpose of this testfile.
The .c patch will properly create a new corresponding source line .debug_line
entry for the 'mov $0x0,%eax' instruction and I also do not think it is
relevant to the purpose of this testfile.
gcc-4.8.5-11.el7.x86_64 did not put the 'mov $0x0,%eax' instruction there at
all so there was no problem with .debug_line.
Tested on {x86_64,x86_64-m32}-fedora24-linux-gnu.
OK to check it in?
Thanks,
Jan
[-- Attachment #2: 1 --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1067 bytes --]
gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog
2016-10-03 Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
* gdb.arch/i386-signal.c (main): Add return 0.
* gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp (backtrace 10): Fix #2 typo.
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.c b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.c
index c5a311e..c168d56 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.c
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.c
@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ int
main (void)
{
setup ();
+ return 0;
}
/* Create an imitation signal frame. This will work on any x86 or
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp
index 276b7c0..51a3a25 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp
@@ -35,6 +35,6 @@ gdb_load ${binfile}
runto func
gdb_test "backtrace 10" \
- "#0 ($hex in )?func.*\r\n#1 <signal handler called>\r\n#2 ($hex in)?main.*"
+ "#0 ($hex in )?func.*\r\n#1 <signal handler called>\r\n#2 ($hex in )?main.*"
gdb_test "finish" "Run till exit from \#0 func.*<signal handler called>"
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [testsuite patch] Fix recent GCC FAIL: gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp
2016-10-03 20:35 [testsuite patch] Fix recent GCC FAIL: gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp Jan Kratochvil
@ 2016-10-04 16:08 ` Yao Qi
2016-10-04 16:19 ` Jan Kratochvil
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Yao Qi @ 2016-10-04 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: gdb-patches
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jan Kratochvil
<jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> The two attached patch chunks each fixes the FAIL on its own.
>
> The .exp patch is an obvious typo fix I think. The regex was written to
> accept "ADDR in main" and I find it OK as checking .debug_line validity is not
> the purpose of this testfile.
>
This is reasonable to me.
> The .c patch will properly create a new corresponding source line .debug_line
> entry for the 'mov $0x0,%eax' instruction and I also do not think it is
> relevant to the purpose of this testfile.
>
Why do we need the second one?
--
Yao (齐尧)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [testsuite patch] Fix recent GCC FAIL: gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp
2016-10-04 16:08 ` Yao Qi
@ 2016-10-04 16:19 ` Jan Kratochvil
2016-10-04 16:39 ` Jan Kratochvil
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2016-10-04 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yao Qi; +Cc: gdb-patches
On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:07:56 +0200, Yao Qi wrote:
> > The .c patch will properly create a new corresponding source line .debug_line
> > entry for the 'mov $0x0,%eax' instruction and I also do not think it is
> > relevant to the purpose of this testfile.
>
> Why do we need the second one?
I find it more cleaner but that is up to you.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [testsuite patch] Fix recent GCC FAIL: gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp
2016-10-04 16:19 ` Jan Kratochvil
@ 2016-10-04 16:39 ` Jan Kratochvil
2016-10-05 8:15 ` Yao Qi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2016-10-04 16:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yao Qi; +Cc: gdb-patches
On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:19:00 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:07:56 +0200, Yao Qi wrote:
> > > The .c patch will properly create a new corresponding source line .debug_line
> > > entry for the 'mov $0x0,%eax' instruction and I also do not think it is
> > > relevant to the purpose of this testfile.
> >
> > Why do we need the second one?
>
> I find it more cleaner but that is up to you.
To make that my reason more explanatory - given the testcase expected output
is affected by that missing "return 0;" and its .debug_line record I find it
more clear for this testcase to put there the source line "return 0;"
explicitly than to depend on such implicit line by compiler as then the debug
info is unclear for that line - even among different compilers.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [testsuite patch] Fix recent GCC FAIL: gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp
2016-10-04 16:39 ` Jan Kratochvil
@ 2016-10-05 8:15 ` Yao Qi
2016-10-05 19:59 ` [commit] " Jan Kratochvil
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Yao Qi @ 2016-10-05 8:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kratochvil; +Cc: gdb-patches
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Jan Kratochvil
<jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:19:00 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:07:56 +0200, Yao Qi wrote:
>> > > The .c patch will properly create a new corresponding source line .debug_line
>> > > entry for the 'mov $0x0,%eax' instruction and I also do not think it is
>> > > relevant to the purpose of this testfile.
>> >
>> > Why do we need the second one?
>>
>> I find it more cleaner but that is up to you.
>
> To make that my reason more explanatory - given the testcase expected output
> is affected by that missing "return 0;" and its .debug_line record I find it
> more clear for this testcase to put there the source line "return 0;"
> explicitly than to depend on such implicit line by compiler as then the debug
> info is unclear for that line - even among different compilers.
>
We need the first chunk "($hex in )?main" because the unwind pc may point
to the first instruction of a source line or the non-first instruction
of a line.
Either is possible. It doesn't matter that "callq setup" and
"mov $0x0,%eax" are mapped to the same line or not.
Change in gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp is good to me, but change
in gdb.arch/i386-signal.c is not necessary.
--
Yao (齐尧)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [commit] [testsuite patch] Fix recent GCC FAIL: gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp
2016-10-05 8:15 ` Yao Qi
@ 2016-10-05 19:59 ` Jan Kratochvil
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kratochvil @ 2016-10-05 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yao Qi; +Cc: gdb-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 466 bytes --]
On Wed, 05 Oct 2016 10:15:08 +0200, Yao Qi wrote:
> We need the first chunk "($hex in )?main" because the unwind pc may point
> to the first instruction of a source line or the non-first instruction
> of a line.
> Either is possible. It doesn't matter that "callq setup" and
> "mov $0x0,%eax" are mapped to the same line or not.
>
> Change in gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp is good to me, but change
> in gdb.arch/i386-signal.c is not necessary.
Checked in.
Jan
[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2251 bytes --]
From: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Subject: [PATCH] testsuite: Fix recent GCC FAIL: gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 21:56:46 +0200
gcc-6.2.1-2.fc24.x86_64
(gdb) backtrace 10^M
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp: backtrace 10
(gdb) disas/s
Dump of assembler code for function main:
.../gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.c:
30 {
0x000000000040057f <+0>: push %rbp
0x0000000000400580 <+1>: mov %rsp,%rbp
31 setup ();
0x0000000000400583 <+4>: callq 0x400590 <setup>
=> 0x0000000000400588 <+9>: mov $0x0,%eax
32 }
0x000000000040058d <+14>: pop %rbp
0x000000000040058e <+15>: retq
End of assembler dump.
The .exp patch is an obvious typo fix I think. The regex was written to
accept "ADDR in main" and I find it OK as checking .debug_line validity is not
the purpose of this testfile.
gcc-4.8.5-11.el7.x86_64 did not put the 'mov $0x0,%eax' instruction there at
all so there was no problem with .debug_line.
gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog
2016-10-05 Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
* gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp (backtrace 10): Fix #2 typo.
---
gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog | 4 ++++
gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp | 2 +-
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog
index 537ca8c..cbea3b2 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+2016-10-05 Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
+
+ * gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp (backtrace 10): Fix #2 typo.
+
2016-10-05 Yao Qi <yao.qi@linaro.org>
* lib/gdb.exp (support_complex_tests): Return zero if
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp
index 276b7c0..51a3a25 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp
@@ -35,6 +35,6 @@ gdb_load ${binfile}
runto func
gdb_test "backtrace 10" \
- "#0 ($hex in )?func.*\r\n#1 <signal handler called>\r\n#2 ($hex in)?main.*"
+ "#0 ($hex in )?func.*\r\n#1 <signal handler called>\r\n#2 ($hex in )?main.*"
gdb_test "finish" "Run till exit from \#0 func.*<signal handler called>"
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-10-05 19:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-10-03 20:35 [testsuite patch] Fix recent GCC FAIL: gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp Jan Kratochvil
2016-10-04 16:08 ` Yao Qi
2016-10-04 16:19 ` Jan Kratochvil
2016-10-04 16:39 ` Jan Kratochvil
2016-10-05 8:15 ` Yao Qi
2016-10-05 19:59 ` [commit] " Jan Kratochvil
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).