Re: [PATCH 4/5] gdb/testsuite: change newline patterns used in gdb_test

[Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>]

Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de> writes:

> On 5/9/23 11:54, Andrew Burgess wrote:
>> Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com> writes:
>> 
>>> Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 5/2/23 13:13, Andrew Burgess wrote:
>>>>> Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/1/23 16:33, Andrew Burgess wrote:
>>>>>>> Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 3/31/23 22:20, Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>>>>>>>> This commit makes two changes to how we match newline characters in
>>>>>>>>> the gdb_test proc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> the -wrap used in gdb_test_multiple is defined in terms of gdb_test
>>>>>>>> semantics, but it doesn't seem to have been updated to match the new
>>>>>>>> behaviour in gdb_test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I've filed a PR about this regression (
>>>>>>>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30403 ).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry for any problems caused.  I'm not working today, but if this has
>>>>>>> not been addressed, I'll look at this on Tuesday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> AFAIU it's a silent regression, so there are no problems in term of
>>>>>> FAILs, it's just that more work is required.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FWIW, I think the root cause for introducing this regression silently is
>>>>>> that we try to implement the same thing in two different locations, and
>>>>>> it's just easy for things to get out of sync.  I recently fixed
>>>>>> something similar in commit 4fa173cfd79 ("[gdb/testsuite] Fix -wrap in
>>>>>> presence of -prompt in gdb_test_multiple"), that's why I noticed it.
>>>>>
>>>>> So I believe the patch below brings gdb_test_multiple with '-wrap' back
>>>>> into line with gdb_test.  I also updated a couple of other places that
>>>>> used the same (old) gdb_test pattern.
>>>>>
>>>>> There were nowhere near as many regressions with this change as with
>>>>> gdb_test.  Let me know what you think.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've applied the patch and tested it, and saw no regression.  I've also
>>>> reviewed the patch and LGTM.
>>>
>>> Thanks Tom,
>>>
>>> I've gone ahead and pushed this patch -- fixing up the newline issues.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> However, I've now also realized that the ^ bit is missing, which was
>>>> also added in this patch series.
>>>>
>>>> In other words, say we have:
>>>> ...
>>>> gdb_test "print 1" "^.$decimal = 1"
>>>> ...
>>>> which passes fine.
>>>>
>>>> But then we want to annotate the PASS message with the captured
>>>> $decimal, and rewrite into:
>>>> ...
>>>> gdb_test_multiple "print 1" "" {
>>>>       -re -wrap "^.($decimal) = 1" {
>>>>           set var_nr $expect_output(1,string)
>>>>           pass "$gdb_test_name (var_nr: $var_nr)"
>>>>       }
>>>> }
>>>> ...
>>>> This FAILs because ^ at the start of the pattern is not handled the same
>>>> way by -wrap as by gdb_test.
>>>
>>> I'm working on an updated patch that addresses the '^' feature for
>>> gdb_test_multiple.  I'm still testing this locally, and it will probably
>>> be next week now before I post this -- but I will get this done, watch
>>> this space :)
>> 
>> Tom,
>> 
>> Below is a patch that extends the '^' support to gdb_test_multiple (when
>> -wrap is used).
>> 
>> Let me know what you think.
>> 
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I've applied the patch and tested it.  I ran into trouble in two recent 
> (more recent than your patch) test-cases, gdb.tui/wrap-line.exp and 
> gdb.base/wrap-line.exp, which both need updating.

I made the obvious fixes for these two tests, and pushed this patch.

Thanks for the review.

Andrew


>
> Otherwise LGTM.
>
> Reviewed-by: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
>
> Thanks,
> - Tom
>
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew
>> 
>> ---
>> 
>> commit 1355a1d7eca5c1dac1c74c98634389525c78d877
>> Author: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>
>> Date:   Tue May 9 10:28:42 2023 +0100
>> 
>>      gdb/testsuite: extend special '^' handling to gdb_test_multiple
>>      
>>      The commit:
>>      
>>        commit 08ec06d6440745ef9204d39197aa1e732df41056
>>        Date:   Wed Mar 29 10:41:07 2023 +0100
>>      
>>            gdb/testsuite: special case '^' in gdb_test pattern
>>      
>>      Added some special handling of '^' to gdb_test -- a leading '^' will
>>      cause the command regexp to automatically be included in the expected
>>      output pattern.
>>      
>>      It was pointed out that the '-wrap' flag of gdb_test_multiple is
>>      supposed to work in the same way as gdb_test, and that the recent
>>      changes for '^' had not been replicated for gdb_test_multiple.  This
>>      patch addresses this issue.
>>      
>>      So, after this commit, the following two constructs should have the
>>      same meaning:
>>      
>>        gdb_test "command" "^output" "test name"
>>      
>>        gdb_test_multiple "command" "test name" {
>>          -re -wrap "^output" {
>>            pass $gdb_test_name
>>          }
>>        }
>>      
>>      In both cases the '^' will case gdb.exp to inject a regexp that
>>      matches 'command' after the '^' and before the 'output', this is in
>>      addition to adding the $gdb_prompt pattern after 'output' in the
>>      normal way.
>>      
>>      The special '^' handling is only applied when '-wrap' is used, as this
>>      is the only mode that aims to mimic gdb_test.
>>      
>>      While working on this patch I realised that I could actually improve
>>      the logic for the special '^' handling in the case where the expected
>>      output pattern is empty.  I replicated these updates for both gdb_test
>>      and gdb_test_multiple in order to keep these two paths in sync.
>>      
>>      There were a small number of tests that needed adjustment after this
>>      change, mostly just removing command regexps that are now added
>>      automatically, but the gdb.base/settings.exp case was a little weird
>>      as it turns out trying to match a single blank line is probably harder
>>      now than it used to be -- still, I suspect this is a pretty rare case,
>>      so I think the benefits (improved anchoring) outweigh this small
>>      downside (IMHO).
>> 
>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/bitshift.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/bitshift.exp
>> index adc5996d736..5ea0cd870ed 100644
>> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/bitshift.exp
>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/bitshift.exp
>> @@ -24,19 +24,17 @@ clean_restart
>>   # expected error.  If WARNING_OR_ERROR is empty, it is expected that
>>   # GDB prints no text other than the print result.
>>   proc test_shift {lang cmd result_re {warning_or_error ""}} {
>> -    set cmd_re [string_to_regexp $cmd]
>> -
>>       if {$lang == "go"} {
>>   	if {$warning_or_error != ""} {
>>   	    set error_re "[string_to_regexp $warning_or_error]"
>>   	    gdb_test_multiple $cmd "" {
>> -		-re -wrap "^$cmd_re\r\n$error_re" {
>> +		-re -wrap "^$error_re" {
>>   		    pass $gdb_test_name
>>   		}
>>   	    }
>>   	} else {
>>   	    gdb_test_multiple $cmd "" {
>> -		-re -wrap "^$cmd_re\r\n\\$$::decimal$result_re" {
>> +		-re -wrap "^\\$$::decimal$result_re" {
>>   		    pass $gdb_test_name
>>   		}
>>   	    }
>> @@ -49,7 +47,7 @@ proc test_shift {lang cmd result_re {warning_or_error ""}} {
>>   	}
>>   
>>   	gdb_test_multiple $cmd "" {
>> -	    -re -wrap "^$cmd_re\r\n$warning_re\\$$::decimal$result_re" {
>> +	    -re -wrap "^$warning_re\\$$::decimal$result_re" {
>>   		pass $gdb_test_name
>>   	    }
>>   	}
>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/maint-print-frame-id.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/maint-print-frame-id.exp
>> index 2ad9b6ddfd7..9e88f37205f 100644
>> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/maint-print-frame-id.exp
>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/maint-print-frame-id.exp
>> @@ -33,10 +33,6 @@ proc get_frame_id { level } {
>>       set id "**unknown**"
>>   
>>       gdb_test_multiple "maint print frame-id ${level}" "" {
>> -	-re "^maint print frame-id\[^\r\n\]+\r\n" {
>> -	    exp_continue
>> -	}
>> -
>>   	-wrap -re "^frame-id for frame #\[0-9\]+: (\[^\r\n\]+)" {
>>   	    set id $expect_out(1,string)
>>   	    pass $gdb_test_name
>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/settings.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/settings.exp
>> index eb127d246d2..1d9ee64ab0d 100644
>> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/settings.exp
>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/settings.exp
>> @@ -542,7 +542,7 @@ proc test-string {variant} {
>>       if {$variant != "filename"} {
>>   	# This odd expected output here is because we expect GDB to
>>   	# emit a single blank line as a result of this command.
>> -	gdb_test "$show_cmd" "^" "$show_cmd: show default"
>> +	gdb_test -nonl "$show_cmd" "^\r\n" "$show_cmd: show default"
>>       } else {
>>   	gdb_test "$show_cmd" "/foo/bar" "$show_cmd: show default"
>>       }
>> @@ -574,7 +574,7 @@ proc test-string {variant} {
>>   	    gdb_test_no_output "$set_cmd"
>>   	    # This odd expected output here is because we expect GDB to
>>   	    # emit a single blank line as a result of this command.
>> -	    gdb_test "$show_cmd" "^" "$show_cmd: empty second time"
>> +	    gdb_test -nonl "$show_cmd" "^\r\n" "$show_cmd: empty second time"
>>   	}
>>       }
>>   
>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/gdb-index-nodebug.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/gdb-index-nodebug.exp
>> index 5aebd2a8606..be666cb9dfd 100644
>> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/gdb-index-nodebug.exp
>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/gdb-index-nodebug.exp
>> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ gdb_test_multiple $cmd "try to save gdb index" {
>>       -re -wrap $no_debug_re {
>>   	pass $gdb_test_name
>>       }
>> -    -re -wrap "^$cmd" {
>> +    -re -wrap "^" {
>>   	pass $gdb_test_name
>>       }
>>   }
>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp
>> index 50c10333df1..aed29652b87 100644
>> --- a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp
>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp
>> @@ -980,6 +980,8 @@ proc fill_in_default_prompt {prompt_regexp with_anchor} {
>>   #           pass $gdb_test_name
>>   #       }
>>   #   }
>> +# The special handling of '^' that is available in gdb_test is also
>> +# supported in gdb_test_multiple when -wrap is used.
>>   #
>>   # In EXPECT_ARGUMENTS, a pattern flag -early can be used.  It makes sure the
>>   # pattern is inserted before any implicit pattern added by gdb_test_multiple.
>> @@ -1125,6 +1127,19 @@ proc gdb_test_multiple { command message args } {
>>   	set expecting_action 1
>>   	if { $wrap_pattern } {
>>   	    # Wrap subst_item as is done for the gdb_test PATTERN argument.
>> +	    if {[string range $subst_item 0 0] eq "^"} {
>> +		if {$command ne ""} {
>> +		    set command_regex [string_to_regexp $command]
>> +		    set subst_item [string range $subst_item 1 end]
>> +		    if {[string length "$subst_item"] > 0} {
>> +			# We have an output pattern (other than the '^'),
>> +			# add a newline at the start, this will eventually
>> +			# sit between the command and the output pattern.
>> +			set subst_item "\r\n${subst_item}"
>> +		    }
>> +		    set subst_item "^${command_regex}${subst_item}"
>> +		}
>> +	    }
>>   	    lappend $current_list \
>>   		"(?:$subst_item)\r\n$prompt_regexp"
>>   	    set wrap_pattern 0
>> @@ -1465,10 +1480,16 @@ proc gdb_test { args } {
>>       # additional pattern that matches the command immediately after
>>       # the '^'.
>>       if {[string range $pattern 0 0] eq "^"} {
>> -	set command_regex [string_to_regexp $command]
>> -	set pattern [string range $pattern 1 end]
>> -	if {$command_regex ne ""} {
>> -	    set pattern "^${command_regex}\r\n$pattern"
>> +	if {$command ne ""} {
>> +	    set command_regex [string_to_regexp $command]
>> +	    set pattern [string range $pattern 1 end]
>> +	    if {[string length "$pattern"] > 0} {
>> +		# We have an output pattern (other than the '^'), add a
>> +		# newline at the start, this will eventually sit between the
>> +		# command and the output pattern.
>> +		set pattern "\r\n$pattern"
>> +	    }
>> +	    set pattern "^${command_regex}${pattern}"
>>   	}
>>       }
>>   
>> @@ -6167,9 +6188,8 @@ proc with_set { var val body } {
>>   	perror "Did not manage to set $var"
>>       } else {
>>   	# Set var.
>> -	set cmd "set $var $val"
>> -	gdb_test_multiple $cmd "" {
>> -	    -re -wrap "^$cmd" {
>> +	gdb_test_multiple "set $var $val" "" {
>> +	    -re -wrap "^" {
>>   	    }
>>   	    -re -wrap " is set to \"?$val\"?\\." {
>>   	    }
>> @@ -6180,9 +6200,8 @@ proc with_set { var val body } {
>>   
>>       # Restore saved setting.
>>       if { $save != "" } {
>> -	set cmd "set $var $save"
>> -	gdb_test_multiple $cmd "" {
>> -	    -re -wrap "^$cmd" {
>> +	gdb_test_multiple "set $var $save" "" {
>> +	    -re -wrap "^" {
>>   	    }
>>   	    -re -wrap "is set to \"?$save\"?( \\(\[^)\]*\\))?\\." {
>>   	    }
>> @@ -7746,7 +7765,7 @@ proc get_valueof { fmt exp default {test ""} } {
>>   
>>       set val ${default}
>>       gdb_test_multiple "print${fmt} ${exp}" "$test" {
>> -	-re "\\$\[0-9\]* = (\[^\r\n\]*)\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
>> +	-re -wrap "^\\$\[0-9\]* = (\[^\r\n\]*)" {
>>   	    set val $expect_out(1,string)
>>   	    pass "$test"
>>   	}
>> @@ -7795,7 +7814,7 @@ proc get_integer_valueof { exp default {test ""} } {
>>   
>>       set val ${default}
>>       gdb_test_multiple "print /d ${exp}" "$test" {
>> -	-re "\\$\[0-9\]* = (\[-\]*\[0-9\]*).*$gdb_prompt $" {
>> +	-re -wrap "^\\$\[0-9\]* = (\[-\]*\[0-9\]*).*" {
>>   	    set val $expect_out(1,string)
>>   	    pass "$test"
>>   	}
>>