* [PATCH] [gdb/testsuite] Fix linespec ambiguity in gdb.base/longjmp.exp
@ 2023-02-10 10:57 Tom de Vries
2023-02-10 14:36 ` Tom Tromey
2023-02-10 14:58 ` Luis Machado
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tom de Vries @ 2023-02-10 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches; +Cc: Luis Machado
PR testsuite/30103 reports the following failure on aarch64-linux
(ubuntu 22.04):
...
(gdb) PASS: gdb.base/longjmp.exp: with_probes=0: pattern 1: next to longjmp
next
warning: Breakpoint address adjusted from 0x83dc305fef755015 to \
0xffdc305fef755015.
Warning:
Cannot insert breakpoint 0.
Cannot access memory at address 0xffdc305fef755015
__libc_siglongjmp (env=0xaaaaaaab1018 <env>, val=1) at ./setjmp/longjmp.c:30
30 }
(gdb) KFAIL: gdb.base/longjmp.exp: with_probes=0: pattern 1: gdb/26967 \
(PRMS: next over longjmp)
delete breakpoints
Delete all breakpoints? (y or n) y
(gdb) info breakpoints
No breakpoints or watchpoints.
(gdb) break 63
No line 63 in the current file.
Make breakpoint pending on future shared library load? (y or [n]) n
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/longjmp.exp: with_probes=0: pattern 2: setup: breakpoint \
at pattern start (got interactive prompt)
...
The test-case intends to set the breakpoint on line number 63 in
gdb.base/longjmp.c.
It tries to do so by specifying "break 63", which specifies a line in the
"current source file".
Due to the KFAIL PR, gdb stopped in __libc_siglongjmp, and because of presence
of debug info, the "current source file" becomes glibc's ./setjmp/longjmp.c.
Consequently, setting the breakpoint fails.
Fix this by adding a $subdir/$srcfile: prefix to the breakpoint linespecs.
I've managed to reproduce the FAIL on x86_64/-m32, by installing the
glibc-32bit-debuginfo package. This allowed me to confirm the "current source
file" that is used:
...
(gdb) KFAIL: gdb.base/longjmp.exp: with_probes=0: pattern 1: gdb/26967 \
(PRMS: next over longjmp)
info source^M
Current source file is ../setjmp/longjmp.c^M
...
Tested on x86_64-linux, target boards unix/{-m64,-m32}.
Reported-By: Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>
PR testsuite/30103
Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30103
---
gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/longjmp.exp | 13 ++++++++-----
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/longjmp.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/longjmp.exp
index 96d9c1c8059..f74891aa7ca 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/longjmp.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/longjmp.exp
@@ -82,6 +82,9 @@ proc do_test { with_probes } {
gdb_assert { !$have_longjmp_probe }
}
+ # When using these line numbers in break linespecs, prefix each of these
+ # with "$subdir/$srcfile:" to avoid referring to a glibc file when stopped
+ # in __libc_siglongjmp or similar.
set bp_miss_step_1 [gdb_get_line_number "miss_step_1"]
set bp_miss_step_2 [gdb_get_line_number "miss_step_2"]
@@ -104,13 +107,13 @@ proc do_test { with_probes } {
with_test_prefix setup {
delete_breakpoints
- gdb_test "break $bp_start_test_1" \
+ gdb_test "break $::subdir/$::srcfile:$bp_start_test_1" \
"Breakpoint.*at.* file .*$::srcfile, line.*$bp_start_test_1.*" \
"breakpoint at pattern start"
gdb_test "continue" "patt1.*" "continue to breakpoint at pattern start"
# set safe-net break
- gdb_test "break $bp_miss_step_1" \
+ gdb_test "break $::subdir/$::srcfile:$bp_miss_step_1" \
"Breakpoint.*at.* file .*$::srcfile, line.*$bp_miss_step_1.*" \
"breakpoint at safety net"
}
@@ -151,13 +154,13 @@ proc do_test { with_probes } {
with_test_prefix setup {
delete_breakpoints
- gdb_test "break $bp_start_test_2" \
+ gdb_test "break $::subdir/$::srcfile:$bp_start_test_2" \
"Breakpoint.*at.* file .*$::srcfile, line.*$bp_start_test_2.*" \
"breakpoint at pattern start"
gdb_test "continue" "patt2.*" "continue to breakpoint at pattern start"
# set safe-net break
- gdb_test "break $bp_miss_step_2" \
+ gdb_test "break $::subdir/$::srcfile:$bp_miss_step_2" \
"Breakpoint.*at.* file .*$::srcfile, line.*$bp_miss_step_2.*" \
"breakpoint at safety net"
}
@@ -198,7 +201,7 @@ proc do_test { with_probes } {
with_test_prefix setup {
delete_breakpoints
- gdb_test "break $bp_start_test_3" \
+ gdb_test "break $::subdir/$::srcfile:$bp_start_test_3" \
"Breakpoint.*at.* file .*$::srcfile, line.*$bp_start_test_3.*" \
"breakpoint at pattern start"
gdb_test "continue" "patt3.*" "continue to breakpoint at pattern start"
base-commit: fe8cdc8ec145a166414fc375cf2cb65d9a8085a1
--
2.35.3
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] [gdb/testsuite] Fix linespec ambiguity in gdb.base/longjmp.exp
2023-02-10 10:57 [PATCH] [gdb/testsuite] Fix linespec ambiguity in gdb.base/longjmp.exp Tom de Vries
@ 2023-02-10 14:36 ` Tom Tromey
2023-02-10 14:58 ` Luis Machado
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2023-02-10 14:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches; +Cc: Tom de Vries, Luis Machado
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:
Tom> Due to the KFAIL PR, gdb stopped in __libc_siglongjmp, and because of presence
Tom> of debug info, the "current source file" becomes glibc's ./setjmp/longjmp.c.
Tom> Consequently, setting the breakpoint fails.
Tom> Fix this by adding a $subdir/$srcfile: prefix to the breakpoint linespecs.
Makes sense to me.
Reviewed-By: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] [gdb/testsuite] Fix linespec ambiguity in gdb.base/longjmp.exp
2023-02-10 10:57 [PATCH] [gdb/testsuite] Fix linespec ambiguity in gdb.base/longjmp.exp Tom de Vries
2023-02-10 14:36 ` Tom Tromey
@ 2023-02-10 14:58 ` Luis Machado
2023-02-10 15:00 ` Tom de Vries
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2023-02-10 14:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom de Vries, gdb-patches
On 2/10/23 10:57, Tom de Vries wrote:
> PR testsuite/30103 reports the following failure on aarch64-linux
> (ubuntu 22.04):
> ...
> (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/longjmp.exp: with_probes=0: pattern 1: next to longjmp
> next
> warning: Breakpoint address adjusted from 0x83dc305fef755015 to \
> 0xffdc305fef755015.
> Warning:
> Cannot insert breakpoint 0.
> Cannot access memory at address 0xffdc305fef755015
>
> __libc_siglongjmp (env=0xaaaaaaab1018 <env>, val=1) at ./setjmp/longjmp.c:30
> 30 }
> (gdb) KFAIL: gdb.base/longjmp.exp: with_probes=0: pattern 1: gdb/26967 \
> (PRMS: next over longjmp)
> delete breakpoints
> Delete all breakpoints? (y or n) y
> (gdb) info breakpoints
> No breakpoints or watchpoints.
> (gdb) break 63
> No line 63 in the current file.
> Make breakpoint pending on future shared library load? (y or [n]) n
> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/longjmp.exp: with_probes=0: pattern 2: setup: breakpoint \
> at pattern start (got interactive prompt)
> ...
>
> The test-case intends to set the breakpoint on line number 63 in
> gdb.base/longjmp.c.
>
> It tries to do so by specifying "break 63", which specifies a line in the
> "current source file".
>
> Due to the KFAIL PR, gdb stopped in __libc_siglongjmp, and because of presence
> of debug info, the "current source file" becomes glibc's ./setjmp/longjmp.c.
>
> Consequently, setting the breakpoint fails.
>
> Fix this by adding a $subdir/$srcfile: prefix to the breakpoint linespecs.
>
> I've managed to reproduce the FAIL on x86_64/-m32, by installing the
> glibc-32bit-debuginfo package. This allowed me to confirm the "current source
> file" that is used:
> ...
> (gdb) KFAIL: gdb.base/longjmp.exp: with_probes=0: pattern 1: gdb/26967 \
> (PRMS: next over longjmp)
> info source^M
> Current source file is ../setjmp/longjmp.c^M
> ...
>
> Tested on x86_64-linux, target boards unix/{-m64,-m32}.
>
> Reported-By: Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>
>
> PR testsuite/30103
> Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30103
> ---
> gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/longjmp.exp | 13 ++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/longjmp.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/longjmp.exp
> index 96d9c1c8059..f74891aa7ca 100644
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/longjmp.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/longjmp.exp
> @@ -82,6 +82,9 @@ proc do_test { with_probes } {
> gdb_assert { !$have_longjmp_probe }
> }
>
> + # When using these line numbers in break linespecs, prefix each of these
> + # with "$subdir/$srcfile:" to avoid referring to a glibc file when stopped
> + # in __libc_siglongjmp or similar.
> set bp_miss_step_1 [gdb_get_line_number "miss_step_1"]
> set bp_miss_step_2 [gdb_get_line_number "miss_step_2"]
>
> @@ -104,13 +107,13 @@ proc do_test { with_probes } {
> with_test_prefix setup {
> delete_breakpoints
>
> - gdb_test "break $bp_start_test_1" \
> + gdb_test "break $::subdir/$::srcfile:$bp_start_test_1" \
> "Breakpoint.*at.* file .*$::srcfile, line.*$bp_start_test_1.*" \
> "breakpoint at pattern start"
> gdb_test "continue" "patt1.*" "continue to breakpoint at pattern start"
>
> # set safe-net break
> - gdb_test "break $bp_miss_step_1" \
> + gdb_test "break $::subdir/$::srcfile:$bp_miss_step_1" \
> "Breakpoint.*at.* file .*$::srcfile, line.*$bp_miss_step_1.*" \
> "breakpoint at safety net"
> }
> @@ -151,13 +154,13 @@ proc do_test { with_probes } {
> with_test_prefix setup {
> delete_breakpoints
>
> - gdb_test "break $bp_start_test_2" \
> + gdb_test "break $::subdir/$::srcfile:$bp_start_test_2" \
> "Breakpoint.*at.* file .*$::srcfile, line.*$bp_start_test_2.*" \
> "breakpoint at pattern start"
> gdb_test "continue" "patt2.*" "continue to breakpoint at pattern start"
>
> # set safe-net break
> - gdb_test "break $bp_miss_step_2" \
> + gdb_test "break $::subdir/$::srcfile:$bp_miss_step_2" \
> "Breakpoint.*at.* file .*$::srcfile, line.*$bp_miss_step_2.*" \
> "breakpoint at safety net"
> }
> @@ -198,7 +201,7 @@ proc do_test { with_probes } {
> with_test_prefix setup {
> delete_breakpoints
>
> - gdb_test "break $bp_start_test_3" \
> + gdb_test "break $::subdir/$::srcfile:$bp_start_test_3" \
> "Breakpoint.*at.* file .*$::srcfile, line.*$bp_start_test_3.*" \
> "breakpoint at pattern start"
> gdb_test "continue" "patt3.*" "continue to breakpoint at pattern start"
>
> base-commit: fe8cdc8ec145a166414fc375cf2cb65d9a8085a1
Thanks Tom. I gave this a try and it fixes the FAIL's I was seeing.
Reviewed-By: Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>
Tested-By: Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] [gdb/testsuite] Fix linespec ambiguity in gdb.base/longjmp.exp
2023-02-10 14:58 ` Luis Machado
@ 2023-02-10 15:00 ` Tom de Vries
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Tom de Vries @ 2023-02-10 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luis Machado, gdb-patches
On 2/10/23 15:58, Luis Machado wrote:
> Thanks Tom. I gave this a try and it fixes the FAIL's I was seeing.
>
> Reviewed-By: Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>
> Tested-By: Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>
Thanks for confirming.
Unfortunately, I was once more too trigger-happy, so the commit is
missing your tested-by tag.
Thanks,
- Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-02-10 15:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-02-10 10:57 [PATCH] [gdb/testsuite] Fix linespec ambiguity in gdb.base/longjmp.exp Tom de Vries
2023-02-10 14:36 ` Tom Tromey
2023-02-10 14:58 ` Luis Machado
2023-02-10 15:00 ` Tom de Vries
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).