[PATCH] Powerpc, fix for test gdb.base/unwind-on-each-insn.exp

[PATCH] Powerpc, fix for test gdb.base/unwind-on-each-insn.exp

[Carl Love]

GDB maintainers, Luis, Tom:

Here is the patch to fix test gdb.base/unwind-on-each-insn.exp on
PowerPC as discussed on IRC.  Per that discussion with Tom and Luis,
the point of the test is to look for an error where a breakpoint in an
inlined ada function was reported as being set in multiple places. 
There should only be one location reported for the test and the
breakpoint address should not be at address 0x0. The test also fails on
aarch64 but passes on X86-64.  The issue is the location of the
inserted breakpoint in function callee may be reported as being in file
callee.adb or in file caller.adb.  The location reported by the ada
compiler for inlined functions seems to be a function of either the ada
compiler version or target dependent.

The following patch will accept the reported breakpoint location as
being correctly set in either file callee.adb or caller.adb.  In either
case the address of the breakpoint must not be zero.  The test checks
that the file line number matches the requested line number in file
calleeadb or one less if the reported location is in caller.adb.  The
key thing is we want to make sure we have a reasonable line number and
the breakpoint address is not zero.

The patch fixes the single test failure on PowerPC.  It does not
introduce any additional errors on the X86-84 platform on which it was
tested.

Please let me know if the patch looks OK for gdb mainline.  Thanks.

                Carl 

-------------------------
Fix the gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp test

The original intention of the test appears to be checking to make sure
setting a breakpoint in an inlined function didn't set multiple breakpoints
where one of them was at address 0.

The gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp test may pass or fail depending on the
version of gnat.  Per the discussion on IRC, the ada inlining appears to
have some target dependencies.  In this test there are two functions,
callee and caller. Function calee is inlined into caller.  The test sets
a breakpoint in function callee.  The reported location where the breakpoint
is set may be at the requested location in callee or the location in caller
after callee has been inlined.  The test needs to accept either location as
correct provided the breakpoint address is not zero.

This patch checks to see if the reported breakpoint is in function callee
or function caller and fails if the breakpoint address is 0x0.  The line
number where the breakpoint is set will match the requested line if the
breakpoint location is reported is callee.adb.  If the reported file is
caller.adb, the line number is one less.  The difference is a function of
the source code.  The key thing is the line number should be reasonable.

This patch fixes the single regression failure for the test on PowerPC.
It does not introduce any failures on X86-64.
---
 gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp | 23 ++++++++++++++++++---
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp
index b707335eb04..1f5dabc1896 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp
@@ -34,8 +34,25 @@ if {[gdb_compile_ada "${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable $options] != ""} {
 
 clean_restart ${testfile}
 
-set bp_location [gdb_get_line_number "BREAK" ${testdir}/callee.adb]
+
+# Depending on the version of gnat, the location of the set breakpoint may
+# be reported as being at the requested location in file callee.adb or in
+# file caller.adb where the callee function was inlined.  Either way, only
+# on breakpoint should be reported and it's address should not be at 0x0.
+# If the breakpoint is reported in caller, then the line number happens to
+# be one less the the requested line number.
+set bp_location1 [gdb_get_line_number "BREAK" ${testdir}/callee.adb]
+set bp_location2 [expr $bp_location1 - 1]
+set test "break callee.adb:$bp_location1"
+set message "Breakpoint set"
+
 # The bug here was that gdb would set a breakpoint with two locations,
 # one of them at 0x0.
-gdb_test "break callee.adb:$bp_location" \
-    "Breakpoint $decimal at $hex: file .*callee.adb, line $bp_location."
+gdb_test_multiple $test $message {
+    -re "Breakpoint $decimal at $hex: file .*callee.adb, line $bp_location1." {
+	pass $test
+    }
+    -re "Breakpoint $decimal at $hex: file .*caller.adb, line $bp_location2." {
+	pass $test
+    }
+}
-- 
2.37.2

Re: [PATCH] Powerpc, fix for test gdb.base/unwind-on-each-insn.exp

[Luis Machado]

Hi Carl,

Is the message body referring to a distinct patch than the one attached? The subject mentions
gdb.base/unwind-on-each-insn.exp, but the patch deals with gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp.

On 11/7/23 21:29, Carl Love wrote:
> GDB maintainers, Luis, Tom:
> 
> Here is the patch to fix test gdb.base/unwind-on-each-insn.exp on
> PowerPC as discussed on IRC.  Per that discussion with Tom and Luis,
> the point of the test is to look for an error where a breakpoint in an
> inlined ada function was reported as being set in multiple places. 
> There should only be one location reported for the test and the
> breakpoint address should not be at address 0x0. The test also fails on
> aarch64 but passes on X86-64.  The issue is the location of the
> inserted breakpoint in function callee may be reported as being in file
> callee.adb or in file caller.adb.  The location reported by the ada
> compiler for inlined functions seems to be a function of either the ada
> compiler version or target dependent.
> 
> The following patch will accept the reported breakpoint location as
> being correctly set in either file callee.adb or caller.adb.  In either
> case the address of the breakpoint must not be zero.  The test checks
> that the file line number matches the requested line number in file
> calleeadb or one less if the reported location is in caller.adb.  The
> key thing is we want to make sure we have a reasonable line number and
> the breakpoint address is not zero.
> 
> The patch fixes the single test failure on PowerPC.  It does not
> introduce any additional errors on the X86-84 platform on which it was
> tested.
> 
> Please let me know if the patch looks OK for gdb mainline.  Thanks.
> 
>                 Carl 
> 
> -------------------------
> Fix the gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp test
> 
> The original intention of the test appears to be checking to make sure
> setting a breakpoint in an inlined function didn't set multiple breakpoints
> where one of them was at address 0.
> 
> The gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp test may pass or fail depending on the
> version of gnat.  Per the discussion on IRC, the ada inlining appears to
> have some target dependencies.  In this test there are two functions,
> callee and caller. Function calee is inlined into caller.  The test sets
> a breakpoint in function callee.  The reported location where the breakpoint
> is set may be at the requested location in callee or the location in caller
> after callee has been inlined.  The test needs to accept either location as
> correct provided the breakpoint address is not zero.
> 
> This patch checks to see if the reported breakpoint is in function callee
> or function caller and fails if the breakpoint address is 0x0.  The line
> number where the breakpoint is set will match the requested line if the
> breakpoint location is reported is callee.adb.  If the reported file is
> caller.adb, the line number is one less.  The difference is a function of
> the source code.  The key thing is the line number should be reasonable.
> 
> This patch fixes the single regression failure for the test on PowerPC.
> It does not introduce any failures on X86-64.
> ---
>  gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp | 23 ++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp
> index b707335eb04..1f5dabc1896 100644
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp
> @@ -34,8 +34,25 @@ if {[gdb_compile_ada "${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable $options] != ""} {
>  
>  clean_restart ${testfile}
>  
> -set bp_location [gdb_get_line_number "BREAK" ${testdir}/callee.adb]
> +
> +# Depending on the version of gnat, the location of the set breakpoint may
> +# be reported as being at the requested location in file callee.adb or in
> +# file caller.adb where the callee function was inlined.  Either way, only
> +# on breakpoint should be reported and it's address should not be at 0x0.
> +# If the breakpoint is reported in caller, then the line number happens to
> +# be one less the the requested line number.
> +set bp_location1 [gdb_get_line_number "BREAK" ${testdir}/callee.adb]
> +set bp_location2 [expr $bp_location1 - 1]
> +set test "break callee.adb:$bp_location1"
> +set message "Breakpoint set"
> +
>  # The bug here was that gdb would set a breakpoint with two locations,
>  # one of them at 0x0.
> -gdb_test "break callee.adb:$bp_location" \
> -    "Breakpoint $decimal at $hex: file .*callee.adb, line $bp_location."
> +gdb_test_multiple $test $message {
> +    -re "Breakpoint $decimal at $hex: file .*callee.adb, line $bp_location1." {
> +	pass $test
> +    }
> +    -re "Breakpoint $decimal at $hex: file .*caller.adb, line $bp_location2." {
> +	pass $test
> +    }
> +}

Re: [PATCH] Powerpc, fix for test gdb.base/unwind-on-each-insn.exp

[Guinevere Larsen]

On 08/11/2023 12:59, Luis Machado wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> Is the message body referring to a distinct patch than the one attached? The subject mentions
> gdb.base/unwind-on-each-insn.exp, but the patch deals with gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp.
I read through, and I think carl just used the wrong test name on the 
email body/subject. The point of gdb.base/unwind-on-each-insn.exp is 
completely different.

-- 
Cheers,
Guinevere Larsen
She/Her/Hers

>
> On 11/7/23 21:29, Carl Love wrote:
>> GDB maintainers, Luis, Tom:
>>
>> Here is the patch to fix test gdb.base/unwind-on-each-insn.exp on
>> PowerPC as discussed on IRC.  Per that discussion with Tom and Luis,
>> the point of the test is to look for an error where a breakpoint in an
>> inlined ada function was reported as being set in multiple places.
>> There should only be one location reported for the test and the
>> breakpoint address should not be at address 0x0. The test also fails on
>> aarch64 but passes on X86-64.  The issue is the location of the
>> inserted breakpoint in function callee may be reported as being in file
>> callee.adb or in file caller.adb.  The location reported by the ada
>> compiler for inlined functions seems to be a function of either the ada
>> compiler version or target dependent.
>>
>> The following patch will accept the reported breakpoint location as
>> being correctly set in either file callee.adb or caller.adb.  In either
>> case the address of the breakpoint must not be zero.  The test checks
>> that the file line number matches the requested line number in file
>> calleeadb or one less if the reported location is in caller.adb.  The
>> key thing is we want to make sure we have a reasonable line number and
>> the breakpoint address is not zero.
>>
>> The patch fixes the single test failure on PowerPC.  It does not
>> introduce any additional errors on the X86-84 platform on which it was
>> tested.
>>
>> Please let me know if the patch looks OK for gdb mainline.  Thanks.
>>
>>                  Carl
>>
>> -------------------------
>> Fix the gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp test
>>
>> The original intention of the test appears to be checking to make sure
>> setting a breakpoint in an inlined function didn't set multiple breakpoints
>> where one of them was at address 0.
>>
>> The gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp test may pass or fail depending on the
>> version of gnat.  Per the discussion on IRC, the ada inlining appears to
>> have some target dependencies.  In this test there are two functions,
>> callee and caller. Function calee is inlined into caller.  The test sets
>> a breakpoint in function callee.  The reported location where the breakpoint
>> is set may be at the requested location in callee or the location in caller
>> after callee has been inlined.  The test needs to accept either location as
>> correct provided the breakpoint address is not zero.
>>
>> This patch checks to see if the reported breakpoint is in function callee
>> or function caller and fails if the breakpoint address is 0x0.  The line
>> number where the breakpoint is set will match the requested line if the
>> breakpoint location is reported is callee.adb.  If the reported file is
>> caller.adb, the line number is one less.  The difference is a function of
>> the source code.  The key thing is the line number should be reasonable.
>>
>> This patch fixes the single regression failure for the test on PowerPC.
>> It does not introduce any failures on X86-64.
>> ---
>>   gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp | 23 ++++++++++++++++++---
>>   1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp
>> index b707335eb04..1f5dabc1896 100644
>> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp
>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp
>> @@ -34,8 +34,25 @@ if {[gdb_compile_ada "${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable $options] != ""} {
>>   
>>   clean_restart ${testfile}
>>   
>> -set bp_location [gdb_get_line_number "BREAK" ${testdir}/callee.adb]
>> +
>> +# Depending on the version of gnat, the location of the set breakpoint may
>> +# be reported as being at the requested location in file callee.adb or in
>> +# file caller.adb where the callee function was inlined.  Either way, only
>> +# on breakpoint should be reported and it's address should not be at 0x0.
>> +# If the breakpoint is reported in caller, then the line number happens to
>> +# be one less the the requested line number.
>> +set bp_location1 [gdb_get_line_number "BREAK" ${testdir}/callee.adb]
>> +set bp_location2 [expr $bp_location1 - 1]
>> +set test "break callee.adb:$bp_location1"
>> +set message "Breakpoint set"
>> +
>>   # The bug here was that gdb would set a breakpoint with two locations,
>>   # one of them at 0x0.
>> -gdb_test "break callee.adb:$bp_location" \
>> -    "Breakpoint $decimal at $hex: file .*callee.adb, line $bp_location."
>> +gdb_test_multiple $test $message {
>> +    -re "Breakpoint $decimal at $hex: file .*callee.adb, line $bp_location1." {
>> +	pass $test
>> +    }
>> +    -re "Breakpoint $decimal at $hex: file .*caller.adb, line $bp_location2." {
>> +	pass $test
>> +    }
>> +}

Re: [PATCH] Powerpc, fix for test gdb.base/unwind-on-each-insn.exp

[Carl Love]

Luis, Tom:

Sorry, I was working on two patches.  Looks like I got them switched
around.  Let me clean that up and repost.   Sorry about that.

                   Carl 

On Wed, 2023-11-08 at 11:59 +0000, Luis Machado wrote:
> Hi Carl,
> 
> Is the message body referring to a distinct patch than the one
> attached? The subject mentions
> gdb.base/unwind-on-each-insn.exp, but the patch deals with
> gdb.ada/inline-section-gc.exp.
>