Re: [PATCH v4 05/15] update gdb.base/info-program.exp to not fail with clang

[Bruno Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com>]

Thanks, I applied your comments and pushed!

Cheers,
Bruno

On 12/09/2022 11:34, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> Bruno Larsen via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:
>
>> The updated test specifically mentions that it doesn't care where the
> I think this sentence makes more sense without 'updated'.
>
>> program stops, however it was still testing for something.  With this
> s/something/a specific location/ ?
>
> I think it might be worth adding a sentence before the 'With this...'.
>
>    The clang compiler emits different line information for function
>    epilogue, and so GDB reports the stop at a different location.
>
> Then finish with: 'With this patch the test works even with clang.'
>
>> correction, the test works even if the compiler doesn't emit line table
>> entries for the function epilogue.
>> ---
>>   gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/info-program.exp | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/info-program.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/info-program.exp
>> index facc13efa2f..f652cfbf426 100644
>> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/info-program.exp
>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/info-program.exp
>> @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ gdb_test "info program" "Program stopped at $hex\.\r\nIt stopped at breakpoint $
>>   
>>   # We don't really care where this step lands, so long as it gets
>>   # the inferior pushed off the breakpoint it's currently on...
>> -gdb_test "next" "$decimal\t.*" "step before info program"
>> +gdb_test "next" ".*" "step before info program"
> I think I'd be tempted to rewrite this comment.  Currently we say that
> we don't care where we stop, just so long as we stop somewhere else.
> The test used to ensure that we did indeed stop somewhere else.  The
> problem is with clang, that somewhere else might be different.  But, but
> using '.*' as a pattern, we're not actually checking that we've moved at
> all.
>
> However, I don't think that actually matters, based on the next thing we
> do, I think this comment would do:
>
>    # We don't really care where this `next` lands, so long as GDB reports
>    # that the inferior stopped due to a step in the subsequent test.
>
> With these changes I think this patch can be merged.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew
>
>>   
>>   gdb_test "info program" "Program stopped at $hex\.\r\nIt stopped after being stepped\.\r\nType \"info stack\" or \"info registers\" for more information\." \
>>       "info program after next"
>> -- 
>> 2.31.1