From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 5C7CF3858D28; Tue, 2 May 2023 09:38:39 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5C7CF3858D28 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1683020319; bh=dcRrkZrmk5YAruhYWOR36XjuGcKq7btKCcamUQapuek=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=MRE5xe5VML3txsWPQbScyCsHgwr63YoFijv+a4Oty+T4dlrheB1rZgv/0FV3Meuv8 xiY7kBbFn5cVzC83Z/Gxtu0xDfVhHcaMrOJyg4bkV7WpEnXcgk0JpnSUyYfzdwrPvO bBMO90uCuN4Hy/zTiyb3h6EPKOzCZiqnRBvDU8Rg= From: "aburgess at redhat dot com" To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug tdep/30340] [gdb/aarch64] gdb doesn't handle unknown debug architecture versions gracefully (TCL errors on gdb.base/watchpoint-unaligned.exp with KVM) Date: Tue, 02 May 2023 09:38:24 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb X-Bugzilla-Component: tdep X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: aburgess at redhat dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: luis.machado at arm dot com X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: bug_status cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D30340 Andrew Burgess changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|WAITING |NEW CC| |aburgess at redhat dot com --- Comment #26 from Andrew Burgess --- We've discussed this bug a little on IRC, but I wanted to drop a note of the current plan. I feel there's two issues here, one if the TCL error. This occurs because a TCL variable ends up not being initialized when one of the gdb_test_multiple calls fails. Then there's a different (but related) question of why the gdb_test_multiple call failed. I think we should fix the uninitialized variable issue separately to digging into the question of "why" the test is failing. There are many reasons why= a gdb_test_multiple call could fail - even if we spot and catch this specific case, the gdb_test_multiple could fail for some other reason tomorrow, and = then the TCL error would be back. Alexandra has a patch on the list which addre= sses the TCL issue which we can merge sooner rather than later[1]. As for why the test is failing in this case, it appears to be some ptrace c= all that is returning unexpected results. Right now it's not clear if this is a legitimate result that GDB/the testsuite is just not expecting, or if this unexpected result represents a bug in the software stack -- the issue was s= een on a virtual machine using Red Hat modified .... well ... everything -- and everything is of various ages. We're currently digging into this issue wit= hin RH trying to figure out where the unexpected result is coming from, and will update here once we know more information. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2023-April/199092.html --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=