[Bug ada/27545] New: FAIL: gdb.ada/tagged.exp: ptype obj

[Bug ada/27545] New: FAIL: gdb.ada/tagged.exp: ptype obj

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27545

            Bug ID: 27545
           Summary: FAIL: gdb.ada/tagged.exp: ptype obj
           Product: gdb
           Version: HEAD
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: ada
          Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
          Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

A new FAIL showed up:
...
(gdb) ptype obj^M
There is no member named _tag.^M
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.ada/tagged.exp: ptype obj
...

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ada/27545] FAIL: gdb.ada/tagged.exp: ptype obj

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27545

Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tromey at sourceware dot org

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ada/27545] FAIL: gdb.ada/tagged.exp: ptype obj

[tromey at sourceware dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27545

Tom Tromey <tromey at sourceware dot org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|unassigned at sourceware dot org   |tromey at sourceware dot org

--- Comment #1 from Tom Tromey <tromey at sourceware dot org> ---
Sorry about that.
Some internal testing @ AdaCore showed a few other regressions, too.
I'm working on them.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ada/27545] FAIL: gdb.ada/tagged.exp: ptype obj

[tromey at sourceware dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27545

--- Comment #2 from Tom Tromey <tromey at sourceware dot org> ---
My testing didn't notice a regression here because it
was failing before:

ptype obj
type = new pck.object with record
    C4b: array (1 .. 8) of system.storage_elements.storage_element;
end record
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.ada/tagged.exp: ptype obj



However, I do see that the way it fails has changed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ada/27545] FAIL: gdb.ada/tagged.exp: ptype obj

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27545

--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I've bisected this to:
...
d308ba78cfaf7c1b3a8d33ceb66c9a180352b888 is the first bad commit
commit d308ba78cfaf7c1b3a8d33ceb66c9a180352b888
Author: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>
Date:   Mon Mar 8 07:27:57 2021 -0700

    Convert f-exp.y to use operations
...

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ada/27545] FAIL: gdb.ada/tagged.exp: ptype obj

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27545

--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #2)
> My testing didn't notice a regression here because it
> was failing before:
> 
> ptype obj
> type = new pck.object with record
>     C4b: array (1 .. 8) of system.storage_elements.storage_element;
> end record
> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.ada/tagged.exp: ptype obj
> 
> 
> 
> However, I do see that the way it fails has changed.

For me, it went from pass to fail.  At
d308ba78cfaf7c1b3a8d33ceb66c9a180352b888^ (so, the commit before things broke)
I have:
...
(gdb) ptype obj^M
type = new pck.object with record^M
    width: integer;^M
end record^M
(gdb) PASS: gdb.ada/tagged.exp: ptype obj
...

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ada/27545] FAIL: gdb.ada/tagged.exp: ptype obj

[tromey at sourceware dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27545

--- Comment #5 from Tom Tromey <tromey at sourceware dot org> ---
(In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #2)
> My testing didn't notice a regression here because it
> was failing before:

This happened because my system gcc-gnat debuginfo was out of date.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ada/27545] FAIL: gdb.ada/tagged.exp: ptype obj

[tromey at sourceware dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27545

Tom Tromey <tromey at sourceware dot org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |11.1

--- Comment #6 from Tom Tromey <tromey at sourceware dot org> ---
I have a fix for this that I'll send soon.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ada/27545] FAIL: gdb.ada/tagged.exp: ptype obj

[tromey at sourceware dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27545

--- Comment #7 from Tom Tromey <tromey at sourceware dot org> ---
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-March/176918.html

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ada/27545] FAIL: gdb.ada/tagged.exp: ptype obj

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27545

--- Comment #8 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Tom Tromey <tromey@sourceware.org>:

https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=9863c3b5fc64eec400ed55792a49c678927a6145

commit 9863c3b5fc64eec400ed55792a49c678927a6145
Author: Tom Tromey <tromey@adacore.com>
Date:   Mon Mar 15 06:23:12 2021 -0600

    Fix regression in Ada ptype

    This fixes PR ada/27545, which points out that a test in
    gdb.ada/tagged.exp started failing due to the expression rewrite.  I
    didn't notice this failure because my system gcc-gnat debuginfo was
    out of date, and so the test was already failing in the baseline.

    Previously, the OP_VAR_VALUE case in ada_evaluate_subexp ended up
    doing a recursive call:

        arg1 = evaluate_subexp (nullptr, exp, pos, EVAL_NORMAL);

    However, during the rewrite I missed this fact and had the new code
    call the superclass implementation.

    This patch fixes the bug by changing this code to use a recursive call
    instead.

    gdb/ChangeLog
    2021-03-15  Tom Tromey  <tromey@adacore.com>

            PR ada/27545:
            * ada-lang.c (ada_var_value_operation::evaluate): Use recursive
            call for tagged type.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug ada/27545] FAIL: gdb.ada/tagged.exp: ptype obj

[tromey at sourceware dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27545

Tom Tromey <tromey at sourceware dot org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #9 from Tom Tromey <tromey at sourceware dot org> ---
Fixed.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.