Re: [pushed] [gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.ada/out_of_line_in_inlined.exp for ppc64le

[Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>]

On 11/28/22 18:45, Carl Love wrote:
> Tom:
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2022-11-28 at 17:21 +0100, Tom de Vries wrote:
>> On powerpc64le-linux, with test-case
>> gdb.ada/out_of_line_in_inlined.exp I run
>> into:
>> ...
>> (gdb) run ^M
>> Starting program: foo_o224_021-all ^M
>> ^M
>> Breakpoint 1, 0x0000000010002f48 in foo_o224_021.child1.child2
>> (s=...) at \
>>    foo_o224_021.adb:24^M
>> 24              function Child2 (S : String) return Boolean is --
>> STOP^M
>> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.ada/out_of_line_in_inlined.exp: scenario=all: \
>>    run to foo_o224_021.child1.child2
>> ...
>>
>> The breakpoint is correctly set at the local entry point, and given
>> that the
>> local entry point doesn't correspond to a line number entry, the
>> instruction
>> address of the breakpoint is shown.
>>
>> The problem is that test-case doesn't expect the breakpoint address.
>>
>> Fix this by allowing the breakpoint address to occur.
>>
>> Tested on powerpc64le-linux.
>> ---
>>   gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/out_of_line_in_inlined.exp | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/out_of_line_in_inlined.exp
>> b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/out_of_line_in_inlined.exp
>> index 4bdb4decaaf..621b04e179b 100644
>> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/out_of_line_in_inlined.exp
>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/out_of_line_in_inlined.exp
>> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ foreach_with_prefix scenario {all minimal} {
>>
>>       gdb_run_cmd
>>       gdb_test "" \
>> -	"Breakpoint $decimal, foo_o224_021\\.child1\\.child2
>> \\(s=\\.\\.\\.\\).*" \
>> +	"Breakpoint $decimal, ($hex in )?foo_o224_021\\.child1\\.child2
>> \\(s=\\.\\.\\.\\).*" \
>>   	"run to foo_o224_021.child1.child2"
>>
>>       set opt_addr_in "($hex in)?"
>>
>> base-commit: 76cd77dc729b03d6b33c683323594479e33a3f9a
> 
> The commit fixes the two test failures when run on my Power 9 box.  The
> test runs without any errors on Power 9 with the fix.
> 
> However, with the commit to fix the test on Power 10, I see the
> following failures:
> 
> (gdb) run
> Starting program: /home/carll/GDB/build-test/gdb/testsuite/outputs/gdb.ada/out_of_line_in_inlined/foo_o224_021-all
> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
> Using host libthread_db library "/lib64/libthread_db.so.1".
> 
> Breakpoint 1.1, foo_o224_021.child1.child2 (s=...) at /home/carll/GDB/binutils-gdb-test/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/out_of_line_\
> in_inlined/foo_o224_021.adb:27
> 27                      Do_Nothing (C);
> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.ada/out_of_line_in_inlined.exp: scenario=all: run to foo_o224_021.child1.child2
> 
> ...
> 
> Breakpoint 1 at 0x10011870: foo_o224_021.child1.child2. (3 locations)
> (gdb) run
> Starting program: /home/carll/GDB/build-test/gdb/testsuite/outputs/gdb.ada/out_of_line_in_inlined/foo_o224_021-minimal
> [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
> Using host libthread_db library "/lib64/libthread_db.so.1".
> 
> Breakpoint 1.1, foo_o224_021.child1.child2 (s=...) at /home/carll/GDB/binutils-gdb-test/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/out_of_line_\
> in_inlined/foo_o224_021.adb:27
> 27                      Do_Nothing (C);
> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.ada/out_of_line_in_inlined.exp: scenario=minimal: run to foo_o224_021.child1.child2
> 
> I backed the gdb tree up to the previous commit on Power 10 with the command:
> 
>   git checkout af31506c31a59a6edbb13498d6075fa704b801cd
> 
> and re-ran the tests.  I see the same two failures.  These failures
> appear to be different than the ones that Tom reported and fixed with
> the commit.
> 
>  From discussion of previous test fixes, there may be a system
> configuration difference here:
> 
> My Power 10 system:   Fedora release 36 (Thirty Six),  gcc (GCC) 12.2.1
> 20220819 (Red Hat 12.2.1-2)
> 
> Power 9 system:   Ubuntu 20.04.5 LTS,  gcc (Ubuntu 9.4.0-
> 1ubuntu1~20.04.1) 9.4.0
> 
>  From what Tom reported on another test, he is running on (openSUSE Leap
> 15.4) has system gcc 7.5.0.
> 

Hi Carl,

thanks for looking into this.

AFAICT, the FAIL is due to the "1.1" rather than "1" for the breakpoint.

So apparently, the compiler optimizes a bit more, resulting in two 
breakpoints instead of one.

So, this looks like an independent issue, and I think it could be fixed 
by just accepting the 1.1, by something like replacing "$decimal" with 
"$decimal(\\.$decimal)?".

Thanks,
- Tom