RE: [PATCH v3 03/14] change gdb.base/symbol-alias to xfail with clang

[Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>]

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

> Hi Jini,
>
> Great to hear that Kavitha's changes have landed on clang! I do think
> that it is still important to have xfails, however, since only new
> clangs would add the information, and GDB is tested in all manner of
> systems.
>
> I have changed the patch to assume that clang 15 has Kavitha's patches,
> and changed the clang compiler test.  Does this look acceptable?
>
> [PATCH v4 03/14] gdb/testsuite: Change gdb.base/symbol-alias to xfail with old clang
>
> Clang didn't use to add alias information, even when using -gfull.  This
> commit checks if the clang version being used is already providing alias
> information (15 or newer), otherwise it adds an XFAIL.

My understanding from Jini's email was that for this test to pass we
would also need this gdb patch:

  https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2022-April/188354.html

So, if I had clang 15 right now, this test would still fail, right?

I guess you either need to hold this patch back until the above is
merged, or put this in with a generic "all clang" pattern (like you
originally had) and then assume someone will spot the KPASS and fix up
the test later.

Also...


> ---
>  gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/symbol-alias.exp | 9 +++++++--
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/symbol-alias.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/symbol-alias.exp
> index 289f49bbc3f..078158dc101 100644
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/symbol-alias.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/symbol-alias.exp
> @@ -31,6 +31,11 @@ foreach f {"func" "func_alias"} {
>  }
>  
>  # Variables.
> -foreach v {"g_var_s" "g_var_s_alias"} {
> -    gdb_test "p $v" "= {field1 = 1, field2 = 2}"
> +gdb_test "p g_var_s" "= {field1 = 1, field2 = 2}"
> +
> +# Clang didn't include alias information until version 15.
> +if {[test_compiler_info {clang-[1-9]*}]
> +     || [test_compiler_info {clang-1[0-4]*}]} {

Wouldn't clang-15 match the first of these patterns?

Thannks,
Andrew


> +    setup_xfail "clang/52664" *-*-*
>  }
> +gdb_test "p g_var_s_alias" "= {field1 = 1, field2 = 2}"
> -- 
> 2.31.1