From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-x430.google.com (mail-wr1-x430.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::430]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EA39385DC17 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:09:00 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 7EA39385DC17 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=embecosm.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=embecosm.com Received: by mail-wr1-x430.google.com with SMTP id bk15so15856769wrb.13 for ; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 06:09:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=embecosm.com; s=google; h=mime-version:user-agent:references:message-id:in-reply-to:subject :cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=lPLh4o38tvy6BagAEHVGuMCI8+RsP83YJAMVAwt6qB4=; b=b5EjMJ7PGudLw/Q+bnau/TkhJdHF7LaLcZRU1AjwkEtqdPkxbp12VYxwUMm2Yt/jvU PAY2o7W9yczFlFFcwIddOJCu49hL3QVVOJbW679/LQfaNPcc9nTEaPqS1oljAmg3dRlP 4tCRDW/q8kAXZOetD3WQLKaXG3k+Ft8p/n5fUDElTxLZQIMGViGXRtvG7tQwG0pE/c8L kte6U9NEPL3/aYVsQNBhIptOy+D5nk0TE/A+bTlhJRAGaGJtSPSw0aRdzA551fJ2QXbU QkAkqa9xfsp4M/86sOUSX56eGjMO6lXjiRe5g86p+6aacjqtIbnHvfkK1gNkewsf903M gbOQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=mime-version:user-agent:references:message-id:in-reply-to:subject :cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=lPLh4o38tvy6BagAEHVGuMCI8+RsP83YJAMVAwt6qB4=; b=eGwH7CPi0rOABXKPKTqJb29mCcI5cKojvwNURR4j0t4pjUQ8b04hzZwd2QNaeaQsmi bVgRqnEe9g+LQk2dgllF+/TmALqVCH22inwh40vzvYS1uoohtJfj3WMo4wfjEocb7RUa aPkN6N15Ymi3DMTH3/eDLrJTH8Wa5v8zw18yeODu1OfT2EPoeoEQ7wUy7hMsfeJBCrRv rPKLOQt+V4VEQ6R/m8K2CmhqfEofHTnYCFTsWT6opUvHtSOXt2GSXiqREDhouJ3ew5qn 1sC2HJwyDCBbEE5RDTmLLaK4PDC2//KQZ5IJilgB5emj66XcKZd+LetFMCRiuXgLKn9g qppQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0pbdUKA6sC8HT+R4zpZXjRQIlz+5ZUNG1nExtBMxPKUhr83bDs sThu5aC/+Ke6/RmbnIcDGcmwkQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM6Q1U8bAzNKGDsCBZu8Ewm6Z57bnkLIebYa+O54lsURzuz0ls80DM1fzkKueRuvkVdwKphLAg== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:650c:0:b0:236:49d9:8e83 with SMTP id x12-20020a5d650c000000b0023649d98e83mr8008930wru.714.1667221739189; Mon, 31 Oct 2022 06:08:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tpp.orcam.me.uk (tpp.orcam.me.uk. [2001:8b0:154:0:ea6a:64ff:fe24:f2fc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p10-20020a1c544a000000b003c71358a42dsm7839929wmi.18.2022.10.31.06.08.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 31 Oct 2022 06:08:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 13:08:57 +0000 (GMT) From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Luis Machado cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Simon Sobisch , Tom Tromey , Andrew Burgess Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/8] GDB/Python: Use None for `var_zuinteger_unlimited' value set to `unlimited' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Mon, 31 Oct 2022, Luis Machado wrote: > A bisect confirmed commit e7e1f2034567207e5e01cb75ea2ffd568a64e84d changed the > gdb.python/py-parameter.exp behavior from PASS to FAIL. > gdb.python/py-format.exp was failing before. > > I've attached the relevant gdb.log and gdb.sum. > > I don't fully understand the issue here, so I can't be sure this is a real > regression or something that was broken before but this patch just happened to > uncover it. Thanks. There is this error: Traceback (most recent call last): File "", line 5, in File "", line 4, in __init__ RuntimeError: Range exceeded. Error while executing Python code. (gdb) PASS: gdb.python/py-parameter.exp: test_integer_parameter: kind=PARAM_UINTEGER: create parameter: input 7: end in creating the parameter earlier on and consequently all the subsequent tests on the parameter fail. I think the case above shouldn't score as a PASS either; pattern matching must be too liberal here. The situation here is previously only parameters of the PARAM_ZUINTEGER and PARAM_ZUINTEGER_UNLIMITED types were tested. Now we also test ones of the PARAM_UINTEGER, PARAM_INTEGER, and PARAM_ZINTEGER types, so it is a new test that is failing. Parameter of all the types are initialised to 0, which is permitted either as itself or as the "unlimited" value. For the failing PARAM_UINTEGER case it means "unlimited". So wonder where this range error is coming from really, hmm... You don't happen to have any local patches applied, do you? Also what version of Python? Maciej