From: Bruno Larsen <blarsen@redhat.com>
To: Carl Love <cel@us.ibm.com>,
gdb-patches@sourceware.org,
UlrichWeigand <Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com>,
pedro@palves.net
Cc: luis.machado@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Fix reverse stepping multiple contiguous PC ranges over the line table.
Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 09:52:38 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <c0655f18-9458-3b24-d344-62b63b5e3a6c@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <956b8c3c9a7bdc3aa6f9a040619ec4778edc9c94.camel@us.ibm.com>
On 10/05/2023 19:16, Carl Love wrote:
>>> +
>>> +require supports_reverse
>>> +
>>> +# This test uses the gcc no-column-info command which was added in
>>> gcc 7.1.
>>> +require get_compiler_info "gcc-7-*"
> I put the compiler check in last. When I ran it, I obviously didn't
> double check gdb/testsuite/gdb.log to make sure it really worked. I
> normally try to make a point of double checking the log file. I have
> been burned before thinking it was OK when there were no errors visible
> on the command line. The above command fails if you check the log file.
>> By constructing your regex like this, you are only allowing this test
>> to
>> be run on gcc 7. Anything later is also not accepted. I would do
>> something like (Warning, untested)
>>
>> require get_compiler_info "gcc"
>> require !get_compiler_info "gcc-[1-6]-*"
> I couldn't get require to work like that. The get_compiler_info
> doesn't seem take "gcc" as an argument.
>
> I changed the test to:
>
> if {![test_compiler_info {gcc-*}]
> || [test_compiler_info {gcc-[1-6]-*}]} {
> return
> }
>
> With this, I do see the correct number of passes in
> gdb/testsuite/gdb.log.
Yeah, this is perfectly fine IMO, since this is a more complicated use
of "require".
>
>> Which requires gcc, but does not allow versions 1 to 6. There is
>> probably a way to do it with a single require line, but I'm not the
>> best
>> with regexes.
>>
>>> +
>>> +proc run_tests {msg} {
>>> + global srcfile
>>> + global executable
>>> +
>>> + runto_main
>>> + set target_remote [gdb_is_target_remote]
>> When probing for target remote, GDB will emit pass/fails with
>> hardcoded
>> names, so the current proc setup gives us some duplicated test names.
>>
>> I would suggest that, instead of passing a message as a parameter,
>> you
>> wrapped all function calls in a with_test_prefix scope, like:
>>
>> with_test_prefix "with-column-info" {
>> run_test
>> }
> OK, I changed from passing in an argument and did the wrapped calls to
> run_test instead. Note, this still didn't fix the duplicate test names
> for turning on record.
>
>>> +
>>> + gdb_test_no_output "record" "turn on process record"
>>> +
>>> + # This regression test verifies the reverse-step and reverse-
>>> next commands
>>> + # work properly when executing backwards thru a source line
>>> containing
>>> + # two function calls on the same source line, i.e. func1 ();
>>> func2 ();
>>> + # This test is compiled so the dwarf info not contain the line
>>> table
>>> + # information.
>>> +
>>> + # Test 1, reverse-next command
>>> + # Set breakpoint at the line after the function calls.
>>> + set bp_start_reverse_test [gdb_get_line_number "START REVERSE
>>> TEST" \
>>> + $srcfile]
>>> + gdb_breakpoint $srcfile:$bp_start_reverse_test temporary
>>> +
>>> + # Continue to break point for reverse-next test.
>>> + # Command definition: reverse-next [count]
>>> + # Run backward to the beginning of the previous line
>>> executed in the
>>> + # current (innermost) stack frame. If the line contains
>>> function calls,
>>> + # they will be “un-executed” without stopping. Starting from
>>> the first
>>> + # line of a function, reverse-next will take you back to the
>>> caller of
>>> + # that function, before the function was called, just as the
>>> normal next
>>> + # command would take you from the last line of a function
>>> back to its
>>> + # return to its caller 2 .
>>> + gdb_continue_to_breakpoint \
>>> + "$msg: test1: stopped at command reverse-next test start
>>> location" \
>>> + ".*$srcfile:$bp_start_reverse_test\r\n.*"
>>> +
>>> + # The reverse-next should step all the way back to the
>>> beginning of the
>>> + # line, i.e. at the beginning of the func1 call.
>>> + gdb_test "reverse-next" ".*func1 \\(\\); func2 \\(\\);.*" \
>>> + "$msg: test1: reverse-next to line with two functions"
>>> +
>>> + # We should be stopped at the first instruction of the line. A
>>> reverse-step
>>> + # should step back and stop at the beginning of the previous
>>> line b = 2,
>>> + # i.e. not in func1 ().
>>> + gdb_test "reverse-stepi" ".*b = 2;.*" \
>>> + "$msg: test1: reverse-stepi to previous line b = 2"
>>> +
>>> +
>>> + # Setup for test 2
>>> + clean_restart $executable
>>> + runto_main
>>> +
>>> + gdb_test_no_output "record" "turn on process record"
>> This gives a duplicate test name from setting up for the first test.
>> Adding "test 2:(...)" in here solves it.
> I couldn't figure out how to get the above syntax to work. So I used
> the with_test_prefix instead, i.e.
oops, sorry, that's what I get for sending a patch review at the end of
a long work day. That wasn't some arcane magic of TCL, it was just me
being too lazy to type out the whole message. Sorry for the wild goose
chase.
>
> with_test_prefix "test2" {
> gdb_test_no_output "record" "turn on process record"
> }
>
> That fixed the duplicate names. I also wrapped the first record with
> "test1" for consistency.
>
--
Cheers,
Bruno
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-11 7:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-27 20:59 [PATCH] " Carl Love
2023-05-02 14:15 ` Bruno Larsen
2023-05-02 15:40 ` Carl Love
2023-05-02 15:42 ` Bruno Larsen
2023-05-11 15:11 ` Simon Marchi
2023-05-03 9:53 ` Bruno Larsen
2023-05-04 2:55 ` Carl Love
2023-05-04 9:24 ` Bruno Larsen
2023-05-04 14:52 ` Carl Love
2023-05-04 2:55 ` [PATCH v2] " Carl Love
2023-05-04 15:59 ` [PATCH v3] " Carl Love
2023-05-05 14:59 ` Luis Machado
2023-05-05 16:10 ` Carl Love
2023-05-10 13:47 ` Bruno Larsen
2023-05-10 17:16 ` Carl Love
2023-05-10 17:32 ` [PATCH v4] " Carl Love
2023-05-11 16:01 ` Simon Marchi
2023-05-11 16:23 ` Bruno Larsen
2023-05-11 17:28 ` Simon Marchi
2023-05-16 22:54 ` [PATCH 1/2] " Carl Love
2023-06-19 17:11 ` Simon Marchi
2023-06-22 16:52 ` Carl Love
2023-06-23 17:44 ` Simon Marchi
2023-06-23 19:41 ` Carl Love
2023-06-23 20:04 ` [PATCH 1/2 ver 2] " Carl Love
2023-07-06 15:07 ` Carl Love
2023-05-16 22:54 ` [PATCH 2/2 v5] " Carl Love
2023-05-25 15:08 ` Carl Love
2023-06-08 16:36 ` Carl Love
2023-06-19 17:58 ` Simon Marchi
2023-06-22 20:38 ` Carl Love
2023-06-22 20:39 ` Carl Love
2023-06-23 17:49 ` Simon Marchi
2023-06-23 20:04 ` Carl Love
2023-06-23 20:04 ` [PATCH 2/2 v6] " Carl Love
2023-05-16 22:54 ` [PATCH v4] " Carl Love
2023-05-11 7:52 ` Bruno Larsen [this message]
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=c0655f18-9458-3b24-d344-62b63b5e3a6c@redhat.com \
--to=blarsen@redhat.com \
--cc=Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com \
--cc=cel@us.ibm.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=luis.machado@arm.com \
--cc=pedro@palves.net \
/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).