Re: [PATCH] Powerpc, fix for test gdb.base/unwind-on-each-insn.exp

[Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>]

Hi Carl,

Is the message body referring to a distinct patch than the one attached? The subject mentions
gdb.base/unwind-on-each-insn.exp, but the patch deals with gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp.

On 11/7/23 21:29, Carl Love wrote:
> GDB maintainers, Luis, Tom:
> 
> Here is the patch to fix test gdb.base/unwind-on-each-insn.exp on
> PowerPC as discussed on IRC.  Per that discussion with Tom and Luis,
> the point of the test is to look for an error where a breakpoint in an
> inlined ada function was reported as being set in multiple places. 
> There should only be one location reported for the test and the
> breakpoint address should not be at address 0x0. The test also fails on
> aarch64 but passes on X86-64.  The issue is the location of the
> inserted breakpoint in function callee may be reported as being in file
> callee.adb or in file caller.adb.  The location reported by the ada
> compiler for inlined functions seems to be a function of either the ada
> compiler version or target dependent.
> 
> The following patch will accept the reported breakpoint location as
> being correctly set in either file callee.adb or caller.adb.  In either
> case the address of the breakpoint must not be zero.  The test checks
> that the file line number matches the requested line number in file
> calleeadb or one less if the reported location is in caller.adb.  The
> key thing is we want to make sure we have a reasonable line number and
> the breakpoint address is not zero.
> 
> The patch fixes the single test failure on PowerPC.  It does not
> introduce any additional errors on the X86-84 platform on which it was
> tested.
> 
> Please let me know if the patch looks OK for gdb mainline.  Thanks.
> 
>                 Carl 
> 
> -------------------------
> Fix the gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp test
> 
> The original intention of the test appears to be checking to make sure
> setting a breakpoint in an inlined function didn't set multiple breakpoints
> where one of them was at address 0.
> 
> The gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp test may pass or fail depending on the
> version of gnat.  Per the discussion on IRC, the ada inlining appears to
> have some target dependencies.  In this test there are two functions,
> callee and caller. Function calee is inlined into caller.  The test sets
> a breakpoint in function callee.  The reported location where the breakpoint
> is set may be at the requested location in callee or the location in caller
> after callee has been inlined.  The test needs to accept either location as
> correct provided the breakpoint address is not zero.
> 
> This patch checks to see if the reported breakpoint is in function callee
> or function caller and fails if the breakpoint address is 0x0.  The line
> number where the breakpoint is set will match the requested line if the
> breakpoint location is reported is callee.adb.  If the reported file is
> caller.adb, the line number is one less.  The difference is a function of
> the source code.  The key thing is the line number should be reasonable.
> 
> This patch fixes the single regression failure for the test on PowerPC.
> It does not introduce any failures on X86-64.
> ---
>  gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp | 23 ++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp
> index b707335eb04..1f5dabc1896 100644
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp
> @@ -34,8 +34,25 @@ if {[gdb_compile_ada "${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable $options] != ""} {
>  
>  clean_restart ${testfile}
>  
> -set bp_location [gdb_get_line_number "BREAK" ${testdir}/callee.adb]
> +
> +# Depending on the version of gnat, the location of the set breakpoint may
> +# be reported as being at the requested location in file callee.adb or in
> +# file caller.adb where the callee function was inlined.  Either way, only
> +# on breakpoint should be reported and it's address should not be at 0x0.
> +# If the breakpoint is reported in caller, then the line number happens to
> +# be one less the the requested line number.
> +set bp_location1 [gdb_get_line_number "BREAK" ${testdir}/callee.adb]
> +set bp_location2 [expr $bp_location1 - 1]
> +set test "break callee.adb:$bp_location1"
> +set message "Breakpoint set"
> +
>  # The bug here was that gdb would set a breakpoint with two locations,
>  # one of them at 0x0.
> -gdb_test "break callee.adb:$bp_location" \
> -    "Breakpoint $decimal at $hex: file .*callee.adb, line $bp_location."
> +gdb_test_multiple $test $message {
> +    -re "Breakpoint $decimal at $hex: file .*callee.adb, line $bp_location1." {
> +	pass $test
> +    }
> +    -re "Breakpoint $decimal at $hex: file .*caller.adb, line $bp_location2." {
> +	pass $test
> +    }
> +}