Re: [PATCH 05/11] gdb/testsuite: allow for clang style destructors on gdb.cp/m-static.exp

[Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>]

Bruno Larsen via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:

> when running gdb.cp/m-static.exp using clang, we get the following
> failures:
>
>     print test1.~gnu_obj_1^M
>     $6 = {void (gnu_obj_1 * const)} 0x555555555470 <gnu_obj_1::~gnu_obj_1()>^M
>     (gdb) FAIL: gdb.cp/m-static.exp: simple object instance, print destructor
>     ptype test1.~gnu_obj_1^M
>     type = void (gnu_obj_1 * const)^M
>     (gdb) FAIL: gdb.cp/m-static.exp: simple object instance, ptype destructor
>     print test1.'~gnu_obj_1'^M
>     $7 = {void (gnu_obj_1 * const)} 0x555555555470 <gnu_obj_1::~gnu_obj_1()>^M
>     (gdb) FAIL: gdb.cp/m-static.exp: simple object instance, print quoted destructor
>
> This is because the test is expecting an extra integer parameter on the
> destructor. Looking at the debuginfo, it seems that there is nothing
> actually wrong with this output, so these tests were changed to test
> multiple possible regexps.
> ---
>  gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/m-static.exp | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/m-static.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/m-static.exp
> index 979de23a44f..332e1cbe1f9 100644
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/m-static.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/m-static.exp
> @@ -102,16 +102,32 @@ if { [is_aarch32_target] } {
>  	{type = void \(single_constructor \* const\)} \
>  	"simple object class, ptype constructor"
>  
> -    gdb_test "print test1.~gnu_obj_1" \
> -	{ = {void \(gnu_obj_1 \* const, int\)} 0x[0-9a-f]+ <gnu_obj_1::~gnu_obj_1\(\)>} \
> -	"simple object instance, print destructor"

Rather than switching to gdb_test_multiple, it might be better to just
update the regexp, like:

  { = {void \(gnu_obj_1 \* const(?:, int)?\)} 0x[0-9a-f]+ <gnu_obj_1::~gnu_obj_1\(\)>}

We already use something like this (though without the '?:' modifier) in
one of the tests below, so I think there's precedent.

Thanks,
Andrew


> -    gdb_test "ptype test1.~gnu_obj_1" \
> -	{type = void \(gnu_obj_1 \* const, int\)} \
> -	"simple object instance, ptype destructor"
> -
> -    gdb_test "print test1.'~gnu_obj_1'" \
> -	{ = {void \(gnu_obj_1 \*( const)?, int\)} 0x[0-9a-f]+ <gnu_obj_1::~gnu_obj_1\(\)>} \
> -	"simple object instance, print quoted destructor"
> +    gdb_test_multiple "print test1.~gnu_obj_1" "simple object instance, print destructor" {
> +	-re -wrap { = {void \(gnu_obj_1 \* const, int\)} 0x[0-9a-f]+ <gnu_obj_1::~gnu_obj_1\(\)>} {
> +	    pass $gdb_test_name
> +	}
> +	-re -wrap { = {void \(gnu_obj_1 \* const\)} 0x[0-9a-f]+ <gnu_obj_1::~gnu_obj_1\(\)>} {
> +	    pass $gdb_test_name
> +	}
> +    }
> +	
> +    gdb_test_multiple "ptype test1.~gnu_obj_1" "simple object instance, ptype destructor" {
> +	-re -wrap {type = void \(gnu_obj_1 \* const, int\)} {
> +	    pass $gdb_test_name
> +	}
> +	-re -wrap {type = void \(gnu_obj_1 \* const\)} {
> +	    pass $gdb_test_name
> +	}
> +    }
> +
> +    gdb_test_multiple "print test1.'~gnu_obj_1'" "simple object instance, print quoted destructor" {
> +	-re -wrap { = {void \(gnu_obj_1 \*( const)?, int\)} 0x[0-9a-f]+ <gnu_obj_1::~gnu_obj_1\(\)>} {
> +	    pass $gdb_test_name
> +	}
> +	-re -wrap { = {void \(gnu_obj_1 \*( const)?\)} 0x[0-9a-f]+ <gnu_obj_1::~gnu_obj_1\(\)>} {
> +	    pass $gdb_test_name
> +	}
> +    }
>  
>      gdb_test "ptype gnu_obj_1::'~gnu_obj_1'" \
>  	{type = void \(gnu_obj_1 \* const\)} \
> -- 
> 2.37.3