* [PATCH] [gdb/ada] Move identical enums handling later
@ 2023-09-06 18:01 Tom de Vries
2023-09-07 14:00 ` Tom Tromey
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Tom de Vries @ 2023-09-06 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
When running test-case gdb.ada/arr_acc_idx_w_gap.exp with target board
cc-with-dwz, I run into:
...
(gdb) print enum_with_gaps'enum_rep(lit3)^M
'Enum_Rep requires argument to have same type as enum^M
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.ada/arr_acc_idx_w_gap.exp: enum_rep
...
With target_board unix, we have instead:
...
(gdb) print enum_with_gaps'enum_rep(lit3)^M
$16 = 13^M
(gdb) PASS: gdb.ada/arr_acc_idx_w_gap.exp: enum_rep
...
Conversely, when I add this test to the test-case:
...
gdb_test "print enum_with_gaps'enum_rep(lit3)" " = 13" \
"enum_rep"
+ gdb_test "print enum_subrange'enum_rep(lit3)" " = 13" \
+ "other enum_rep"
...
the extra test passes with target board cc-with-dwz, but fails with target
board unix.
The problem is here in remove_extra_symbols:
...
if (symbols_are_identical_enums (syms))
syms.resize (1);
...
where one of the two identical enums is picked before the enum_rep handling
can resolve lit3 to one of the two.
Fix this by moving the code to ada_resolve_variable.
Tested on x86_64-linux.
PR ada/30726
Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30726
---
gdb/ada-lang.c | 35 ++++++++++++---------
gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/arr_acc_idx_w_gap.exp | 2 ++
2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gdb/ada-lang.c b/gdb/ada-lang.c
index c0cc512bfa3..2e1b9664fdc 100644
--- a/gdb/ada-lang.c
+++ b/gdb/ada-lang.c
@@ -202,6 +202,8 @@ static struct type *ada_find_any_type (const char *name);
static symbol_name_matcher_ftype *ada_get_symbol_name_matcher
(const lookup_name_info &lookup_name);
+static int symbols_are_identical_enums
+ (const std::vector<struct block_symbol> &syms);
\f
/* The character set used for source files. */
@@ -3875,6 +3877,24 @@ ada_resolve_variable (struct symbol *sym, const struct block *block,
&& context_type->code () == TYPE_CODE_ENUM)
i = ada_resolve_enum (candidates, sym->linkage_name (), context_type,
parse_completion);
+ else if (context_type == nullptr
+ && symbols_are_identical_enums (candidates))
+ {
+ /* If all the remaining symbols are identical enumerals, then
+ just keep the first one and discard the rest.
+
+ Unlike what we did previously, we do not discard any entry
+ unless they are ALL identical. This is because the symbol
+ comparison is not a strict comparison, but rather a practical
+ comparison. If all symbols are considered identical, then
+ we can just go ahead and use the first one and discard the rest.
+ But if we cannot reduce the list to a single element, we have
+ to ask the user to disambiguate anyways. And if we have to
+ present a multiple-choice menu, it's less confusing if the list
+ isn't missing some choices that were identical and yet distinct. */
+ candidates.resize (1);
+ i = 0;
+ }
else if (deprocedure_p && !is_nonfunction (candidates))
{
i = ada_resolve_function
@@ -5091,21 +5111,6 @@ remove_extra_symbols (std::vector<struct block_symbol> &syms)
else
i += 1;
}
-
- /* If all the remaining symbols are identical enumerals, then
- just keep the first one and discard the rest.
-
- Unlike what we did previously, we do not discard any entry
- unless they are ALL identical. This is because the symbol
- comparison is not a strict comparison, but rather a practical
- comparison. If all symbols are considered identical, then
- we can just go ahead and use the first one and discard the rest.
- But if we cannot reduce the list to a single element, we have
- to ask the user to disambiguate anyways. And if we have to
- present a multiple-choice menu, it's less confusing if the list
- isn't missing some choices that were identical and yet distinct. */
- if (symbols_are_identical_enums (syms))
- syms.resize (1);
}
/* Given a type that corresponds to a renaming entity, use the type name
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/arr_acc_idx_w_gap.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/arr_acc_idx_w_gap.exp
index 4a1482b6d99..a98e9e1e2c3 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/arr_acc_idx_w_gap.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/arr_acc_idx_w_gap.exp
@@ -69,6 +69,8 @@ foreach_with_prefix scenario {all minimal} {
gdb_test "print enum_with_gaps'enum_rep(lit3)" " = 13" \
"enum_rep"
+ gdb_test "print enum_subrange'enum_rep(lit3)" " = 13" \
+ "other enum_rep"
gdb_test "print enum_with_gaps'enum_val(21)" " = lit4" \
"enum_val"
}
base-commit: 313b2841b8e9046ea658104988e01bedf6148d5f
--
2.35.3
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] [gdb/ada] Move identical enums handling later
2023-09-06 18:01 [PATCH] [gdb/ada] Move identical enums handling later Tom de Vries
@ 2023-09-07 14:00 ` Tom Tromey
2023-09-08 5:56 ` Tom de Vries
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2023-09-07 14:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches; +Cc: Tom de Vries
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:
Tom> The problem is here in remove_extra_symbols:
Tom> ...
Tom> if (symbols_are_identical_enums (syms))
Tom> syms.resize (1);
Tom> ...
Tom> where one of the two identical enums is picked before the enum_rep handling
Tom> can resolve lit3 to one of the two.
Tom> Fix this by moving the code to ada_resolve_variable.
Thank you. It's hard to reason about this patch (like, maybe there
could be some code path that now misses the de-duplication), but given
that you tested it, I think it's ok.
Approved-By: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] [gdb/ada] Move identical enums handling later
2023-09-07 14:00 ` Tom Tromey
@ 2023-09-08 5:56 ` Tom de Vries
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Tom de Vries @ 2023-09-08 5:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Tromey, Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches
On 9/7/23 16:00, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Tom" == Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:
>
> Tom> The problem is here in remove_extra_symbols:
> Tom> ...
> Tom> if (symbols_are_identical_enums (syms))
> Tom> syms.resize (1);
> Tom> ...
> Tom> where one of the two identical enums is picked before the enum_rep handling
> Tom> can resolve lit3 to one of the two.
>
> Tom> Fix this by moving the code to ada_resolve_variable.
>
> Thank you. It's hard to reason about this patch (like, maybe there
> could be some code path that now misses the de-duplication),
True.
> but given
> that you tested it, I think it's ok.
>
Thanks for the review, committed.
- Tom
> Approved-By: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
>
> Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2023-09-08 5:56 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-09-06 18:01 [PATCH] [gdb/ada] Move identical enums handling later Tom de Vries
2023-09-07 14:00 ` Tom Tromey
2023-09-08 5:56 ` 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).