[Bug tdep/29867] New: [gdb/tdep, s390x -m31] FAIL: gdb.guile/scm-lazy-string.exp: ptr: print ptr

[Bug tdep/29867] New: [gdb/tdep, s390x -m31] FAIL: gdb.guile/scm-lazy-string.exp: ptr: print ptr

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29867

            Bug ID: 29867
           Summary: [gdb/tdep, s390x -m31] FAIL:
                    gdb.guile/scm-lazy-string.exp: ptr: print ptr
           Product: gdb
           Version: HEAD
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: tdep
          Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
          Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

With gdb build from trunk on s390x-linux with target board unix/-m31, I run
into:
...
(gdb) PASS: gdb.guile/scm-lazy-string.exp: bad length
print ptr^M
$1 = 0x804006b0 <error: Cannot access memory at address 0x804006b0>^M
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.guile/scm-lazy-string.exp: ptr: print ptr
...

A minimal example is:
...
$ gdb -q -batch -ex "set trace-commands on" -x gdb.in
+file scm-lazy-string/scm-lazy-string
+break main
Breakpoint 1 at 0x4005d2: file scm-lazy-string.c, line 23.
+run 

Breakpoint 1, main () at scm-lazy-string.c:23
23        const char *ptr = "pointer";
+step
24        const char array[] = "array";
+print ptr
$1 = 0x804006b0 <error: Cannot access memory at address 0x804006b0>
...

If we delete the breakpoint after running to it, we have instead the expected:
...
$ gdb -q -batch -ex "set trace-commands on" -x gdb.in
+file scm-lazy-string
+break main
Breakpoint 1 at 0x4005d2: file scm-lazy-string.c, line 23.
+run 

Breakpoint 1, main () at scm-lazy-string.c:23
23        const char *ptr = "pointer";
+delete
+step
24        const char array[] = "array";
+print ptr
$1 = 0x4006b0 "pointer"
...

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

[Bug tdep/29867] [gdb/tdep, s390x -m31] FAIL: gdb.guile/scm-lazy-string.exp: ptr: print ptr

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29867

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |arnez at linux dot ibm.com,
                   |                            |cel at us dot ibm.com,
                   |                            |ulrich.weigand at de dot ibm.com

--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The problem is in displaced stepping over insn:
...
│B+> 0x4005d2 <main+10>      larl    %r1,0x4006b0                              
             │...

In the failing case we have:
...
(gdb) si
(gdb) p /x $r1
$1 = 0x3ff804006b0
(gdb) 
...

In the passing case we have:
...
(gdb) si
(gdb) p /x $r1
$2 = 0x3ff004006b0
...

The difference comes from this code in s390_displaced_step_fixup:
...
  /* Handle LOAD ADDRESS RELATIVE LONG.  */
  else if (is_ril (insn, op1_larl, op2_larl, &r1, &i2))
    {
      /* Update PC.  */
      regcache_write_pc (regs, from + insnlen);
      /* Recompute output address in R1.  */
      regcache_cooked_write_unsigned (regs, S390_R0_REGNUM + r1,
                                      amode | (from + i2 * 2));
    }
...
where the "amode |" adds the 0x80000000.

Using this patch:
...
diff --git a/gdb/s390-tdep.c b/gdb/s390-tdep.c
index d0dba7654bb..11b309dc817 100644
--- a/gdb/s390-tdep.c
+++ b/gdb/s390-tdep.c
@@ -557,7 +557,7 @@ s390_displaced_step_fixup (struct gdbarch *gdbarch,
       regcache_write_pc (regs, from + insnlen);
       /* Recompute output address in R1.  */
       regcache_cooked_write_unsigned (regs, S390_R0_REGNUM + r1,
-                                     amode | (from + i2 * 2));
+                                     (from + i2 * 2));
     }

   /* If we executed a breakpoint instruction, point PC right back at it.  */
...
the test-case passes.

I don't understand the architecture well enough to decide what the root cause
is and whether this patch addresses it.

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

[Bug tdep/29867] [gdb/tdep, s390x -m31] FAIL: gdb.guile/scm-lazy-string.exp: ptr: print ptr

[uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29867

Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #2 from Ulrich Weigand <uweigand at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Ah right.  LARL does *not* set the amode bit in 31-bit mode (in contrast to
BASR / BRASL).  The patch looks good to me.

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

[Bug tdep/29867] [gdb/tdep, s390x -m31] FAIL: gdb.guile/scm-lazy-string.exp: ptr: print ptr

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29867

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|---                         |13.1
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED

--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
https://sourceware.org/git/?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=search;s=Tom+de+Vries;st=author

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