Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] gdb, testsuite, fortran: adapt info symbol expected output for intel compilers

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>]

> > Info symbol is expected to print the symbol table name of a symbol, since
> > symbol lookup happens via the minimal symbol table.  This name
> > corresponds to the linkage name in the full symbol table.
> > 
> > For gfortran (and maybe others) these names currently have the form
> > XXXX.NUMBER where XXXX is the symbol name and NUMBER a compiler
> > generated appendix for mangling.
> > An example taken from the modified nested-funcs-2.exp would be
> > 
> > ~~~~
> > $ objdump -t ./outputs/gdb.fortran/nested-funcs-2/nested-funcs-2 | grep \
> > increment
> > 00000000000014ab l  F .text  0000000000000095  increment.3883
> > 000000000000141c l  F .text  000000000000008f  increment_program_global.3881
> > ~~~~
> > 
> > This mangled name gets recognized by the Ada demangler/decoder and decoded as
> > Ada to XXXX (setting the symbol language to Ada).  This leads to output
> > of XXXX over XXXX.NUMBER for info symbol on gfortran symbols.
> > 
> > For ifort and ifx the generated linkage names have the form
> > SCOPEA_SCOPEB_XXXX_ which are not recognized by the Ada decoder (or any
> > other demangler for that matter) and thus printed as is.
> > The respective objdump in the above case looks like
> > 
> > ~~~~
> > $ objdump -t ./outputs/gdb.fortran/nested-funcs-2/nested-funcs-2 | grep \
> > increment
> > 0000000000403a44 l  F .text  0000000000000074  contains_keyword_IP_increment_
> > 0000000000403ab8 l  F .text  0000000000000070
> > contains_keyword_IP_increment_program_global_
> > ~~~~
> > 
> > In the unmodified testcase this results in 'fails' when ran with the intel
> > compilers:
> > 
> > ~~~~
> > >> make check RUNTESTFLAGS="gdb.fortran/nested-funcs-2.exp \
> > GDBFLAGS='$GDBFLAGS' CC_FOR_TARGET='icpc' F90_FOR_TARGET='ifort'"
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> >                 === gdb Summary ===
> > 
> > \# of expected passes            80
> > \# of unexpected failures        14
> > ~~~~
> > 
> > Note that there is no Fortran mangling standard.  We keep the gfortran
> > behavior as is and modify the test to reflect ifx and ifort mangled
> > names which fixes above fails.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Nils-Christian Kempke <nils-christian.kempke@intel.com>
> 
> You might want to wait a couple more days in case Joel wants to follow
> up, but I think this looks good.
> 
> If Joel doesn't get back to you, then feel free to push this next
> week.

Looks good to me too.

Just for the sake of completeness, one alternative could have been
to use gdb_test_multiple, I believe. But both are equally fine
for me.


Thanks both!
-- 
Joel