public inbox for gdb-patches@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Bruno Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: [PATCH v5 6/7] gdb.base/skip.exp: Use finish to exit functions
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2022 15:14:26 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220914131427.269689-7-blarsen@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220914131427.269689-1-blarsen@redhat.com>

gdb.base/skip.exp was making use of a fixed number of step commands to
exit some functions.  This caused some problems when using clang to test
GDB, as GDB would need fewer steps to reach the desired spots.  For
instance, when testing in the section "step after disabling 3", the log
looks like this:

    Breakpoint 4, main () at binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.c:32
    32        x = baz ((bar (), foo ()));
    (gdb) step
    bar () at binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip1.c:21
    21        return 1;
    (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/skip.exp: step after disabling 3: step 1
    step
    foo () at binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.c:42
    42        return 0;
    (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/skip.exp: step after disabling 3: step 2
    step
    main () at binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.c:34
    34        test_skip_file_and_function ();
    (gdb) step
    test_skip_file_and_function () at binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.c:59
    59        test_skip ();
    (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/skip.exp: step after disabling 3: step 3
    step
    test_skip () at binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.c:48
    48      }
    (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/skip.exp: step after disabling 3: step 4
    step
    test_skip_file_and_function () at binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.c:60
    60        skip1_test_skip_file_and_function ();
    (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/skip.exp: step after disabling 3: step 5

This shows that the feature is working but because the inferior lands in
a different location, it registers as a failure.  Seeing as along with
this difference, there are also some differences that depend on gcc
versions (where gdb might stop back at line 32 before entering foo), it
would not be easy to test for this behavior using steps and analzing
where the inferior stops at each point. On the other hand, using
gdb_step_until is not feasible because we'd possibly gloss over stepping
into baz and rendering the whole test useless.  Instead, skip.exp now
uses finish to leave functions, synchronizing through compilers and
compiler versions.  Some test names were also changed to be a bit more
descriptive.  The new log looks like this, independently of compiler used:

    Breakpoint 4, main () at binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.c:32
    32        x = baz ((bar (), foo ()));
    (gdb) step
    bar () at binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip1.c:21
    21        return 1;
    (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/skip.exp: step after disabling 3: step into bar
    finish
    Run till exit from #0  bar () at binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip1.c:21
    main () at binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.c:32
    32        x = baz ((bar (), foo ()));
    Value returned is $2 = 1
    (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/skip.exp: step after disabling 3: return from bar
    step
    foo () at binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.c:42
    42        return 0;
    (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/skip.exp: step after disabling 3: step into foo
    finish
    Run till exit from #0  foo () at binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.c:42
    main () at binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.c:32
    32        x = baz ((bar (), foo ()));
    Value returned is $3 = 0
    (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/skip.exp: step after disabling 3: Return from foo
    step
    34        test_skip_file_and_function ();
    (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/skip.exp: step after disabling 3: step and skip baz
---

Andrew OK'd this patch in a previous version, but asked for this to only
be pushed together with patch number 7

 gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.exp | 34 ++++++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.exp
index e6b660004d9..0864e445f13 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/skip.exp
@@ -100,6 +100,14 @@ if ![runto_main] {
 gdb_test "step" ".*" "step in the main"
 gdb_test "bt" "\\s*\\#0\\s+main.*" "step after all ignored"
 
+# This proc tests that GDB can step into the function foo, exit it
+# and skip the functions bar and baz.
+proc step_foo_skip_bar_baz {} {
+    gdb_test "step" "foo \\(\\) at.*" "step and skip bar"
+    gdb_test "finish" ".*" "return from bar"
+    gdb_test "step" ".*test_skip_file_and_function.*" "step and skip baz"
+}
+
 # Now remove skip.c from the skiplist.  Our first step should take us
 # into foo(), and our second step should take us to the next line in main().
 
@@ -117,21 +125,19 @@ with_test_prefix "step after deleting 1" {
 	return
     }
 
-    gdb_test "step" "foo \\(\\) at.*" "step 1"
-    gdb_test "step" ".*" "step 2" ; # Return from foo()
-    gdb_test "step" "main \\(\\) at.*" "step 3"
+    step_foo_skip_bar_baz
 }
 
 # 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()
+    gdb_test "step" "bar \\(\\) at.*" "step into bar"
+    gdb_test "finish" ".*" "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" {
+    gdb_test_multiple "step" "step into foo" {
 	-re -wrap "foo \\(\\) at.*" {
 	    pass $gdb_test_name
 	}
@@ -144,8 +150,8 @@ proc step_bar_foo_skip_baz {} {
 	}
     }
 
-    gdb_test "step" ".*" "step 4"; # Return from foo()
-    gdb_test "step" "main \\(\\) at.*" "step 5"
+    gdb_test "finish" ".*" "Return from foo"
+    gdb_test "step" ".*test_skip_file_and_function.*" "step and skip baz"
 }
 
 # Now disable the skiplist entry for  skip1.c.  We should now
@@ -178,9 +184,7 @@ with_test_prefix "step after enable 3" {
 	return
     }
 
-    gdb_test "step" "foo \\(\\) at.*" "step 1"
-    gdb_test "step" ".*" "step 2"; # Return from foo()
-    gdb_test "step" "main \\(\\) at.*" "step 3"
+    step_foo_skip_bar_baz
 }
 
 # Admin tests (disable,enable,delete).
@@ -249,9 +253,7 @@ with_test_prefix "step using -fi" {
 
     gdb_test_no_output "skip disable"
     gdb_test_no_output "skip enable 5"
-    gdb_test "step" "foo \\(\\) at.*" "step 1"
-    gdb_test "step" ".*" "step 2"; # Return from foo()
-    gdb_test "step" "main \\(\\) at.*" "step 3"
+    step_foo_skip_bar_baz
 }
 
 with_test_prefix "step using -gfi" {
@@ -261,9 +263,7 @@ with_test_prefix "step using -gfi" {
 
     gdb_test_no_output "skip disable"
     gdb_test_no_output "skip enable 6"
-    gdb_test "step" "foo \\(\\) at.*" "step 1"
-    gdb_test "step" ".*" "step 2"; # Return from foo()
-    gdb_test "step" "main \\(\\) at.*" "step 3"
+    step_foo_skip_bar_baz
 }
 
 with_test_prefix "step using -fu for baz" {
-- 
2.37.3


  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-09-14 13:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-09-14 13:14 [PATCH v5 0/7] Clean gdb.base when testing with clang Bruno Larsen
2022-09-14 13:14 ` [PATCH v5 1/7] gdb/testsuite: Add a proc to test where compiler links the epilogue Bruno Larsen
2022-09-14 13:14 ` [PATCH v5 2/7] Change gdb.base/skip-solib.exp deal with lack of epilogue information Bruno Larsen
2022-09-14 13:14 ` [PATCH v5 3/7] gdb/testsuite: fix testing gdb.base/skip-inline.exp with clang Bruno Larsen
2022-09-14 13:14 ` [PATCH v5 4/7] gdb/testsuite: fix gdb.base/msym-bp-shl when running with Clang Bruno Larsen
2022-09-14 13:14 ` [PATCH v5 5/7] fix gdb.base/jit-elf.exp when testing with clang Bruno Larsen
2022-09-14 13:14 ` Bruno Larsen [this message]
2022-09-14 13:14 ` [PATCH v5 7/7] gdb/testsuite: Add test to step through function epilogue Bruno Larsen
2022-09-21 16:05 ` [PATCH v5 0/7] Clean gdb.base when testing with clang Tom Tromey
2022-09-22  9:05   ` Bruno Larsen

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=20220914131427.269689-7-blarsen@redhat.com \
    --to=blarsen@redhat.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@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: link
Be 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).