From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0866C383E809 for ; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 10:50:59 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 0866C383E809 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tdevries@suse.de X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.221.27]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC919AF5D; Sun, 28 Jun 2020 10:50:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [committed][gdb/testsuite] Update psym-external-decl.exp for gcc-10/clang To: Gary Benson Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20200502075127.GA21196@delia> <20200617122432.GA28940@blade.nx> <20200618161044.GA1032@blade.nx> <21d9fcc8-62c4-d1a5-f085-0c7f26783255@suse.de> <20200619140041.GB31823@blade.nx> <6dd30362-e9dd-6bc9-bf40-8b846b926e5a@suse.de> <20200626093727.GA8682@blade.nx> From: Tom de Vries Autocrypt: addr=tdevries@suse.de; keydata= xsBNBF0ltCcBCADDhsUnMMdEXiHFfqJdXeRvgqSEUxLCy/pHek88ALuFnPTICTwkf4g7uSR7 HvOFUoUyu8oP5mNb4VZHy3Xy8KRZGaQuaOHNhZAT1xaVo6kxjswUi3vYgGJhFMiLuIHdApoc u5f7UbV+egYVxmkvVLSqsVD4pUgHeSoAcIlm3blZ1sDKviJCwaHxDQkVmSsGXImaAU+ViJ5l CwkvyiiIifWD2SoOuFexZyZ7RUddLosgsO0npVUYbl6dEMq2a5ijGF6/rBs1m3nAoIgpXk6P TCKlSWVW6OCneTaKM5C387972qREtiArTakRQIpvDJuiR2soGfdeJ6igGA1FZjU+IsM5ABEB AAHNH1RvbSBkZSBWcmllcyA8dGRldnJpZXNAc3VzZS5kZT7CwKsEEwEIAD4WIQSsnSe5hKbL MK1mGmjuhV2rbOJEoAUCXSW0JwIbAwUJA8JnAAULCQgHAgYVCgkICwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAh CRDuhV2rbOJEoBYhBKydJ7mEpsswrWYaaO6FXats4kSgc48H/Ra2lq5p3dHsrlQLqM7N68Fo eRDf3PMevXyMlrCYDGLVncQwMw3O/AkousktXKQ42DPJh65zoXB22yUt8m0g12xkLax98KFJ 5NyUloa6HflLl+wQL/uZjIdNUQaHQLw3HKwRMVi4l0/Jh/TygYG1Dtm8I4o708JS4y8GQxoQ UL0z1OM9hyM3gI2WVTTyprsBHy2EjMOu/2Xpod95pF8f90zBLajy6qXEnxlcsqreMaqmkzKn 3KTZpWRxNAS/IH3FbGQ+3RpWkNGSJpwfEMVCeyK5a1n7yt1podd1ajY5mA1jcaUmGppqx827 8TqyteNe1B/pbiUt2L/WhnTgW1NC1QDOwE0EXSW0JwEIAM99H34Bu4MKM7HDJVt864MXbx7B 1M93wVlpJ7Uq+XDFD0A0hIal028j+h6jA6bhzWto4RUfDl/9mn1StngNVFovvwtfzbamp6+W pKHZm9X5YvlIwCx131kTxCNDcF+/adRW4n8CU3pZWYmNVqhMUiPLxElA6QhXTtVBh1RkjCZQ Kmbd1szvcOfaD8s+tJABJzNZsmO2hVuFwkDrRN8Jgrh92a+yHQPd9+RybW2l7sJv26nkUH5Z 5s84P6894ebgimcprJdAkjJTgprl1nhgvptU5M9Uv85Pferoh2groQEAtRPlCGrZ2/2qVNe9 XJfSYbiyedvApWcJs5DOByTaKkcAEQEAAcLAkwQYAQgAJhYhBKydJ7mEpsswrWYaaO6FXats 4kSgBQJdJbQnAhsMBQkDwmcAACEJEO6FXats4kSgFiEErJ0nuYSmyzCtZhpo7oVdq2ziRKD3 twf7BAQBZ8TqR812zKAD7biOnWIJ0McV72PFBxmLIHp24UVe0ZogtYMxSWKLg3csh0yLVwc7 H3vldzJ9AoK3Qxp0Q6K/rDOeUy3HMqewQGcqrsRRh0NXDIQk5CgSrZslPe47qIbe3O7ik/MC q31FNIAQJPmKXX25B115MMzkSKlv4udfx7KdyxHrTSkwWZArLQiEZj5KG4cCKhIoMygPTA3U yGaIvI/BGOtHZ7bEBVUCFDFfOWJ26IOCoPnSVUvKPEOH9dv+sNy7jyBsP5QxeTqwxC/1ZtNS DUCSFQjqA6bEGwM22dP8OUY6SC94x1G81A9/xbtm9LQxKm0EiDH8KBMLfQ== Message-ID: Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 12:50:57 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200626093727.GA8682@blade.nx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 28 Jun 2020 10:51:00 -0000 On 6/26/20 11:37 AM, Gary Benson wrote: > Tom de Vries wrote: >> On 6/19/20 4:00 PM, Gary Benson wrote: >>> Tom de Vries wrote: >>>> On 6/18/20 6:10 PM, Gary Benson wrote: >>>>> Tom de Vries wrote: >>>>>> On 6/17/20 2:24 PM, Gary Benson wrote: >>>>>>> Tom, I'd like this testcase to not fail silently. Is the >>>>>>> functionality under test something that isn't ever >>>>>>> expected to work with clang, or is this a test that should >>>>>>> pass with clang (but it currently doesn't, for whatever >>>>>>> reason)? >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not sure. The test can pass with clang, provided it >>>>>> generates the required debug info. It currently doesn't. >>>>>> Why that is the case, I have no idea. >>>>> >>>>> I think that means the test should work but it doesn't. Would >>>>> you object if I push a patch removing the test-skipping logic? >>>>> It will mean an extra FAIL when tested using clang >>>> >>>> I don't think having a fail for a compiler bug/missing-feature >>>> is a good idea. >>>> >>>> If this is due to a bug/missing-feature in clang, then we need to: >>>> - xfail the test, >>>> - file the PR in clang, and >>>> - reference the PR at the xfail. >>> >>> Is this a bug/missing feature in clang though? >>> How sure are you GDB isn't at fault? >> >> Clang emits less debug info than GCC. Whether that's a bug, a >> missing feature or an explicit unsupported feature in clang, I >> don't known. >> >> I known that gdb isn't at fault. It can't do anything without the >> missing debug info. The test was specifically written to use that >> debug info. > > I'm not really sure what's the right thing to do here. > > On the one hand, my current task is ensuring GDB can debug > clang-compiled with clang as well as it can debug GCC-compiled > code. From that perspective the skip-if-clang logic in this > test is hiding a failure I need to investigate. > > On the other hand, I'm an engineer working on GDB, and from that > perspective I want to be able to run the GDB testsuite and see > 100% pass, on whatever setup I test it on. And yes, I know it > doesn't... but it *should*. > > Is there a way to pass a "don't skip clang failures" flag to the > testcases, such that people running the testsuite normally would > see tests like these return UNSUPPORTED, but I could run the > testsuite with the flag so it'd not skip but FAIL wherever the > problem is? I think the following is a good way of dealing with this. We introduce a proc in gdb.exp called debug_info_for_decl or some such, that returns false by default for clang. Instead of testing for a specific compiler in the test-case, we call this new proc, and mark the test-case UNSUPPORTED if it returns false. Then if you want to see how clang performs if we expect it to have that feature, you comment out the clang-specific code in the proc. Thanks, - Tom