Re: GDB 12.0.90 available for testing

[Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3281 bytes --]

Hi,

On 4/13/22 08:36, Luis Machado wrote:
> Hi Joel,
> 
> On 4/12/22 18:57, Joel Brobecker wrote:
>> Hi Luis,
>>
>>> On 3/20/22 05:58, Joel Brobecker via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I have just finished creating the gdb-12.0.90 pre-release.
>>>> It is available for download at the following location:
>>>>
>>>>       ftp://sourceware.org/pub/gdb/snapshots/branch/gdb-12.0.90.tar.xz
>>>>
>>>> A gzip'ed version is also available: gdb-12.0.90.tar.gz.
>>>>
>>>> Please give it a test if you can and report any problems you might 
>>>> find.
>>>>
>>>> On behalf of all the GDB contributors, thank you!
>>>
>>> It seems GDB doesn't build with --enable-targets=all for 32-bit Arm. 
>>> I think
>>> this is a long-standing bug that has not been fixed yet.
>>>
>>> I'd consider this a blocker for the release, as builds shouldn't fail.
>>
>> Generally speaking, I tend to agree, but at the same time, it really
>> depends.
>>
>> Is this specific to GDB 12, or did we have this issue with previous
>> releases?
> 
> This has been introduced in GDB 12 development as far as I remember. It 
> is similar/related to the following:
> 
> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2021-November/118485.html
> 
> Also discussed slightly in 
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28684.
> 
> I reported it back then: 
> https://sourceware.org/pipermail/binutils/2021-November/118554.html.
> 
> It might be an easy configure adjustment, but I'm not familiar with bpf.
> 
> I know Jose Marchesi did work on bpf, but I'm not sure if he is the 
> right PoC.
> 
>>
>> We also need some kind of visibility as to how quickly we think we can
>> solve that issue. This usually requires someone to act as the issue's
>> "champion" -- that person might not be the one actually making the fix,
>> but they can at least try help expedite the process.
> 
> Agreed. I just want to make sure this has visibility so we can try to 
> fix it before release.
> 
>>
>>> I get the following:
>>>
>>> binutils-gdb-armhf-bionic/sim/bpf/../../../../repos/binutils-gdb/sim/bpf/../common/sim-close.c:43: 
>>>
>>> undefined reference to `bpf_cgen_cpu_close'
>>>
>>> binutils-gdb-armhf-bionic/sim/bpf/../../../../repos/binutils-gdb/sim/bpf/sim-if.c:166: 
>>>
>>> undefined reference to `bpf_cgen_cpu_open_1'
>>>
>>> binutils-gdb-armhf-bionic/sim/bpf/../../../../repos/binutils-gdb/sim/bpf/sim-if.c:179: 
>>>
>>> undefined reference to `bpf_cgen_init_dis'
>>>
>>> This is GCC 7.5.0 on Ubuntu 18.04.
>>>
>>> Should I go ahead and open a ticket against the release? I'm not sure 
>>> who is
>>> responsible for handling BPF.
>>
>> I'd start by asking Mike Frysinger, who's the sim maintainer.
>> He might not know about this particular target, but he's made
>> a lot of cleanups in this area.
>>
>> In this case, hopefully the fix won't be too difficult.
>>
> 
> cc-ed both Mike and Jose Marchesi.
> 
> Thanks,
> Luis

The attached patch makes things build again, though I see a number of 
GDB internal errors when disassembling (for some arch/abi combinations). 
I suspect we're missing some adjustments to make disassembling work

This particular combination of switches and host has not been built in a 
while, so bugs might've been introduced/uncovered.

Mike, Jose, does this look reasonable?

[-- Attachment #2: 0001-Fix-32-bit-build-for-enable-targets-all.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2557 bytes --]

From 387ef2492403c89ac7ac817488a49a3fd7d9d4ba Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2022 11:39:36 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix 32-bit build for --enable-targets=all

The following fixes the GDB build for 32-bit (tested on 32-bit arm)
for the following combinations:

* --enable-targets=all --disable-sim
* --enable-targets=all

I do see quite a few internal errors when running
gdb.base/all-architectures.exp on arm 32-bit Ubuntu 18.04. They all
fail when checking for a default disassembling function, which doesn't
exists for some targets.

This particular combination of switches has not been tested for 32-bit
hosts in a while (since November/December 2021), so there might be bugs
that we need to address. The patch makes things build cleanly though.

Tested on aarch64-linux Ubuntu 20.04 and armhf-linux-gnueabi Ubuntu 18.04.

It would be nice to exercise this on other 32-bit targets.
---
 opcodes/Makefile.am | 10 ++++++++++
 opcodes/Makefile.in | 10 ++++++++++
 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+)

diff --git a/opcodes/Makefile.am b/opcodes/Makefile.am
index afd19fa7785..681fbc07584 100644
--- a/opcodes/Makefile.am
+++ b/opcodes/Makefile.am
@@ -124,6 +124,11 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
 	arm-dis.c \
 	avr-dis.c \
 	bfin-dis.c \
+	bpf-asm.c \
+	bpf-desc.c \
+	bpf-dis.c \
+	bpf-ibld.c \
+	bpf-opc.c \
 	cgen-asm.c \
 	cgen-bitset.c \
 	cgen-dis.c \
@@ -178,6 +183,9 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
 	lm32-ibld.c \
 	lm32-opc.c \
 	lm32-opinst.c \
+	loongarch-opc.c \
+	loongarch-dis.c \
+	loongarch-coder.c \
 	m10200-dis.c \
 	m10200-opc.c \
 	m10300-dis.c \
@@ -234,6 +242,8 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
 	ppc-opc.c \
 	pru-dis.c \
 	pru-opc.c \
+	riscv-dis.c \
+	riscv-opc.c \
 	rl78-decode.c \
 	rl78-dis.c \
 	rx-decode.c \
diff --git a/opcodes/Makefile.in b/opcodes/Makefile.in
index 3ab8bfb0548..d3eee49b169 100644
--- a/opcodes/Makefile.in
+++ b/opcodes/Makefile.in
@@ -516,6 +516,11 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
 	arm-dis.c \
 	avr-dis.c \
 	bfin-dis.c \
+	bpf-asm.c \
+	bpf-desc.c \
+	bpf-dis.c \
+	bpf-ibld.c \
+	bpf-opc.c \
 	cgen-asm.c \
 	cgen-bitset.c \
 	cgen-dis.c \
@@ -570,6 +575,9 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
 	lm32-ibld.c \
 	lm32-opc.c \
 	lm32-opinst.c \
+	loongarch-opc.c \
+	loongarch-dis.c \
+	loongarch-coder.c \
 	m10200-dis.c \
 	m10200-opc.c \
 	m10300-dis.c \
@@ -626,6 +634,8 @@ TARGET32_LIBOPCODES_CFILES = \
 	ppc-opc.c \
 	pru-dis.c \
 	pru-opc.c \
+	riscv-dis.c \
+	riscv-opc.c \
 	rl78-decode.c \
 	rl78-dis.c \
 	rx-decode.c \
-- 
2.25.1