From: "Kumar N, Bhuvanendra" <Bhuvanendra.KumarN@amd.com>
To: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>,
"gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Cc: "George, Jini Susan" <JiniSusan.George@amd.com>,
"Achra, Nitika" <Nitika.Achra@amd.com>,
"Sharma, Alok Kumar" <AlokKumar.Sharma@amd.com>,
"E, Nagajyothi" <Nagajyothi.E@amd.com>,
"Tomar, Sourabh Singh" <SourabhSingh.Tomar@amd.com>
Subject: [PATCH] [gdb.base] Convert multi-line function call into in foll-exec.c
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 14:57:10 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <DM5PR12MB145035DEA1A0352ED04624CE873C9@DM5PR12MB1450.namprd12.prod.outlook.com> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6668 bytes --]
[AMD Official Use Only - Internal Distribution Only]
Hi Simon and all,
Could you please review this GDB patch. Patch is attached with this email and also inlined here. Thanks in advance
Problem Description:
Following 8 test points started to fail after the clang backend patch(https://reviews.llvm.org/D91734).
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: step through execlp call
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: step after execlp call
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: print execd-program/global_i (after execlp)
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: print execd-program/local_j (after execlp)
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: print follow-exec/local_k (after execlp)
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: step through execl call
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: step after execl call
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: print execd-program/local_j (after execl)
Sample gdb.base/foll-exec.c test file snippet :
. . .
42 execlp (prog, /* tbreak-execlp */
43 prog,
44 "execlp arg1 from foll-exec",
45 (char *) 0);
46
47 printf ("foll-exec is about to execl(execd-prog)...\n");
. . .
Resolution:
We had discussed 2 ways of handling this issue earlier, i.e.
1. Adding few extra "next" command during these multi-line function call
2. combine these multi-line function call into single line in foll-exec.c
This PR has taken the latter approach and converted the multi-line function call into single line in foll-exec.c, thereby there is no change in .debug_line entries now and test case works as expected.
NOTE: earlier I had sent a test patch(sent on 2021-04-15) with first approach and it was suggested to follow the second approach, hence now I am sending this PR with the second approach
regards,
bhuvan
Patch content inlined:
From 77e09b9b9a19dfb35a748fd57d7a16eb52f1b6ee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?=E2=80=9Cbhkumarn=E2=80=9D?= Bhuvanendra.KumarN@amd.com<mailto:Bhuvanendra.KumarN@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 17:50:28 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] [gdb.base] Convert multi-line function call into
single line.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
After this clang backend patch(https://reviews.llvm.org/D91734), 8 test points
started to FAIL in this test case. As mentioned in this PR, "...this test is
trying to "next" over a function call; gcc attributes all parameter evaluation
to the function name, while clang will attribute each parameter to its own
location. And when the parameters span across multiple source lines, the
is_stmt heuristic kicks in, so we stop on each line with actual parameters...".
gdb.base/foll-exec.c test file snippet :
. . .
42 execlp (prog, /* tbreak-execlp */
43 prog,
44 "execlp arg1 from foll-exec",
45 (char *) 0);
46
47 printf ("foll-exec is about to execl(execd-prog)...\n");
. . .
Line table: (before clang backend patch for the above code snippet) :
0x000000b0: 84 address += 8, line += 2
0x000000000020196a 42 3 1 0 0
0x000000b1: 08 DW_LNS_const_add_pc (0x0000000000000011)
0x000000b2: 41 address += 3, line += 5
0x000000000020197e 47 3 1 0 0
Line table: (after clang backend patch for the above code snippet) :
0x000000b5: 84 address += 8, line += 2
0x0000000000201958 42 11 1 0 0
0x000000b6: 05 DW_LNS_set_column (4)
0x000000b8: 75 address += 7, line += 1
0x000000000020195f 43 4 1 0 0
0x000000b9: 05 DW_LNS_set_column (3)
0x000000bb: 73 address += 7, line += -1
0x0000000000201966 42 3 1 0 0
0x000000bc: 08 DW_LNS_const_add_pc (0x0000000000000011)
0x000000bd: 4f address += 4, line += 5
0x000000000020197b 47 3 1 0 0
Following 8 test points started to fail after the above clang backend patch.
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: step through execlp call
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: step after execlp call
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: print execd-program/global_i (after execlp)
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: print execd-program/local_j (after execlp)
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: print follow-exec/local_k (after execlp)
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: step through execl call
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: step after execl call
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: print execd-program/local_j (after execl)
As we can note, reason for these new test failures is due to additional
.debug_line entries getting created in case of clang compiler, hence to fix
this issue, test case required either additional "next" command during
these multi-line function call or combine these multi-line function call into
single line. This PR has taken the latter approach and converted the multi-line
function call into single line in foll-exec.c, thereby there is no change in
.debug_line entries now and test case works as expected.
---
gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog | 5 +++++
gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/foll-exec.c | 11 ++---------
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog
index 7959f58c3c4..1873f9ddf05 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2021-06-03 Bhuvanendra Kumar N Bhuvanendra.KumarN@amd.com<mailto:Bhuvanendra.KumarN@amd.com>
+
+ * gdb.base/foll-exec.c: convert the multi-line function call into
+ single line.
+
2021-06-02 Bernd Edlinger bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de<mailto:bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>
* gdb.dwarf2/per-bfd-sharing.exp: Fix temp-dir leakage.
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/foll-exec.c b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/foll-exec.c
index fea62b06db4..f1b97aca4a4 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/foll-exec.c
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/foll-exec.c
@@ -39,18 +39,11 @@ int main (int argc, char ** argv)
memcpy (prog + len - 9, "execd-prog", 10);
prog[len + 1] = 0;
- execlp (prog, /* tbreak-execlp */
- prog,
- "execlp arg1 from foll-exec",
- (char *) 0);
+ execlp (prog, /* tbreak-execlp */ prog, "execlp arg1 from foll-exec", (char *) 0);
printf ("foll-exec is about to execl(execd-prog)...\n");
- execl (prog, /* tbreak-execl */
- prog,
- "execl arg1 from foll-exec",
- "execl arg2 from foll-exec",
- (char *) 0);
+ execl (prog, /* tbreak-execl */ prog, "execl arg1 from foll-exec", "execl arg2 from foll-exec", (char *) 0);
{
static char * argv[] = {
--
2.17.1
[-- Attachment #2: gdb.base-Convert-multi-line-function-call-into.patch --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 4726 bytes --]
From 77e09b9b9a19dfb35a748fd57d7a16eb52f1b6ee Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: =?UTF-8?q?=E2=80=9Cbhkumarn=E2=80=9D?= <Bhuvanendra.KumarN@amd.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2021 17:50:28 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] [gdb.base] Convert multi-line function call into
single line.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
After this clang backend patch(https://reviews.llvm.org/D91734), 8 test points
started to FAIL in this test case. As mentioned in this PR, "...this test is
trying to "next" over a function call; gcc attributes all parameter evaluation
to the function name, while clang will attribute each parameter to its own
location. And when the parameters span across multiple source lines, the
is_stmt heuristic kicks in, so we stop on each line with actual parameters...".
gdb.base/foll-exec.c test file snippet :
. . .
42 execlp (prog, /* tbreak-execlp */
43 prog,
44 "execlp arg1 from foll-exec",
45 (char *) 0);
46
47 printf ("foll-exec is about to execl(execd-prog)...\n");
. . .
Line table: (before clang backend patch for the above code snippet) :
0x000000b0: 84 address += 8, line += 2
0x000000000020196a 42 3 1 0 0
0x000000b1: 08 DW_LNS_const_add_pc (0x0000000000000011)
0x000000b2: 41 address += 3, line += 5
0x000000000020197e 47 3 1 0 0
Line table: (after clang backend patch for the above code snippet) :
0x000000b5: 84 address += 8, line += 2
0x0000000000201958 42 11 1 0 0
0x000000b6: 05 DW_LNS_set_column (4)
0x000000b8: 75 address += 7, line += 1
0x000000000020195f 43 4 1 0 0
0x000000b9: 05 DW_LNS_set_column (3)
0x000000bb: 73 address += 7, line += -1
0x0000000000201966 42 3 1 0 0
0x000000bc: 08 DW_LNS_const_add_pc (0x0000000000000011)
0x000000bd: 4f address += 4, line += 5
0x000000000020197b 47 3 1 0 0
Following 8 test points started to fail after the above clang backend patch.
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: step through execlp call
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: step after execlp call
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: print execd-program/global_i (after execlp)
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: print execd-program/local_j (after execlp)
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: print follow-exec/local_k (after execlp)
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: step through execl call
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: step after execl call
FAIL: gdb.base/foll-exec.exp: print execd-program/local_j (after execl)
As we can note, reason for these new test failures is due to additional
.debug_line entries getting created in case of clang compiler, hence to fix
this issue, test case required either additional “next” command during
these multi-line function call or combine these multi-line function call into
single line. This PR has taken the latter approach and converted the multi-line
function call into single line in foll-exec.c, thereby there is no change in
.debug_line entries now and test case works as expected.
---
gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog | 5 +++++
gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/foll-exec.c | 11 ++---------
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog
index 7959f58c3c4..1873f9ddf05 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
+2021-06-03 Bhuvanendra Kumar N <Bhuvanendra.KumarN@amd.com>
+
+ * gdb.base/foll-exec.c: convert the multi-line function call into
+ single line.
+
2021-06-02 Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>
* gdb.dwarf2/per-bfd-sharing.exp: Fix temp-dir leakage.
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/foll-exec.c b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/foll-exec.c
index fea62b06db4..f1b97aca4a4 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/foll-exec.c
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/foll-exec.c
@@ -39,18 +39,11 @@ int main (int argc, char ** argv)
memcpy (prog + len - 9, "execd-prog", 10);
prog[len + 1] = 0;
- execlp (prog, /* tbreak-execlp */
- prog,
- "execlp arg1 from foll-exec",
- (char *) 0);
+ execlp (prog, /* tbreak-execlp */ prog, "execlp arg1 from foll-exec", (char *) 0);
printf ("foll-exec is about to execl(execd-prog)...\n");
- execl (prog, /* tbreak-execl */
- prog,
- "execl arg1 from foll-exec",
- "execl arg2 from foll-exec",
- (char *) 0);
+ execl (prog, /* tbreak-execl */ prog, "execl arg1 from foll-exec", "execl arg2 from foll-exec", (char *) 0);
{
static char * argv[] = {
--
2.17.1
next reply other threads:[~2021-06-03 14:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-03 14:57 Kumar N, Bhuvanendra [this message]
2021-06-03 15:38 ` Simon Marchi
2021-06-07 6:31 ` Kumar N, Bhuvanendra
2021-06-07 15:07 ` Simon Marchi
2021-06-07 15:19 ` Kumar N, Bhuvanendra
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=DM5PR12MB145035DEA1A0352ED04624CE873C9@DM5PR12MB1450.namprd12.prod.outlook.com \
--to=bhuvanendra.kumarn@amd.com \
--cc=AlokKumar.Sharma@amd.com \
--cc=JiniSusan.George@amd.com \
--cc=Nagajyothi.E@amd.com \
--cc=Nitika.Achra@amd.com \
--cc=SourabhSingh.Tomar@amd.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=simon.marchi@polymtl.ca \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).