[Bug gdb/30548] New: [gdb, ppc64le, s390x] FAIL: gdb.base/inline-frame-cycle-unwind.exp: cycle at level 5: backtrace when the unwind is broken at frame 5

[Bug gdb/30548] New: [gdb, ppc64le, s390x] FAIL: gdb.base/inline-frame-cycle-unwind.exp: cycle at level 5: backtrace when the unwind is broken at frame 5

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30548

            Bug ID: 30548
           Summary: [gdb, ppc64le, s390x] FAIL:
                    gdb.base/inline-frame-cycle-unwind.exp: cycle at level
                    5: backtrace when the unwind is broken at frame 5
           Product: gdb
           Version: HEAD
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: gdb
          Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
          Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

I'm running into these FAILs with ppc64le and s390x:
...
FAIL: gdb.base/inline-frame-cycle-unwind.exp: cycle at level 5: backtrace when
the unwind is broken at frame 5
FAIL: gdb.base/inline-frame-cycle-unwind.exp: cycle at level 3: backtrace when
the unwind is broken at frame 3
FAIL: gdb.base/inline-frame-cycle-unwind.exp: cycle at level 1: backtrace when
the unwind is broken at frame 1
...

First in more detail:
...
(gdb) PASS: gdb.base/inline-frame-cycle-unwind.exp: cycle at level 5: maint
flush register-cache
bt^M
#0  inline_func () at
/home/vries/gdb/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/inline-frame-cycle-unwind.c:49^M
#1  normal_func () at
/home/vries/gdb/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/inline-frame-cycle-unwind.c:32^M
#2  0x0000000010000734 in inline_func () at
/home/vries/gdb/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/inline-frame-cycle-unwind.c:45^M
#3  normal_func () at
/home/vries/gdb/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/inline-frame-cycle-unwind.c:32^M
register has not been saved in frame^M
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/inline-frame-cycle-unwind.exp: cycle at level 5: backtrace
when the unwind is broken at frame 5
...


Fails quite consistently, from SLE-12 to Tumbleweed:
...
$ find tmp-qa-remote/ -name "*.sum" | xargs grep -c "FAIL:
gdb.base/inline-frame-cycle-unwind.exp" | grep -v :0
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.SLE-15.s390x/gdb-testresults/gdb-s390x-suse-linux-m64.-fno-PIE.-no-pie.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.SLE-15.s390x/gdb-testresults/gdb-s390x-suse-linux-m64.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.openSUSE_Leap_15.4.s390x/gdb-testresults/gdb-s390x-suse-linux-m64.-fno-PIE.-no-pie.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.openSUSE_Leap_15.4.s390x/gdb-testresults/gdb-s390x-suse-linux-m64.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.openSUSE_Factory_PPC.ppc64le/gdb-testresults/gdb-ppc64le-suse-linux-m64.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.openSUSE_Factory_PPC.ppc64le/gdb-testresults/gdb-ppc64le-suse-linux-m64.-fno-PIE.-no-pie.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.openSUSE_Factory_ARM.armv7l/gdb-testresults/gdb-armv7hl-suse-linux.-fno-PIE.-no-pie.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.openSUSE_Factory_ARM.armv7l/gdb-testresults/gdb-armv7hl-suse-linux.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.SLE-15.ppc64le/gdb-testresults/gdb-ppc64le-suse-linux-m64.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.SLE-15.ppc64le/gdb-testresults/gdb-ppc64le-suse-linux-m64.-fno-PIE.-no-pie.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.openSUSE_Factory_zSystems.s390x/gdb-testresults/gdb-s390x-suse-linux-m64.-fno-PIE.-no-pie.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.openSUSE_Factory_zSystems.s390x/gdb-testresults/gdb-s390x-suse-linux-m64.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.openSUSE_Leap_15.3.ppc64le/gdb-testresults/gdb-ppc64le-suse-linux-m64.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.openSUSE_Leap_15.3.ppc64le/gdb-testresults/gdb-ppc64le-suse-linux-m64.-fno-PIE.-no-pie.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.openSUSE_Leap_15.4.ppc64le/gdb-testresults/gdb-ppc64le-suse-linux-m64.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.openSUSE_Leap_15.4.ppc64le/gdb-testresults/gdb-ppc64le-suse-linux-m64.-fno-PIE.-no-pie.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.SLE-12.ppc64le/gdb-testresults/gdb-ppc64le-suse-linux-m64.-fPIE.-pie.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.SLE-12.ppc64le/gdb-testresults/gdb-ppc64le-suse-linux-m64.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.SLE-12.s390x/gdb-testresults/gdb-s390x-suse-linux-m64.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.SLE-12.s390x/gdb-testresults/gdb-s390x-suse-linux-m64.-fPIE.-pie.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.openSUSE_Leap_15.3.s390x/gdb-testresults/gdb-s390x-suse-linux-m64.-fno-PIE.-no-pie.sum:3
tmp-qa-remote/binaries-testsuite.openSUSE_Leap_15.3.s390x/gdb-testresults/gdb-s390x-suse-linux-m64.sum:3
...

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

[Bug gdb/30548] [gdb, ppc64le, s390x] FAIL: gdb.base/inline-frame-cycle-unwind.exp: cycle at level 5: backtrace when the unwind is broken at frame 5

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30548

--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
With this change:
...
diff --git a/gdb/python/py-unwind.c b/gdb/python/py-unwind.c
index c55b5aa85ec..88ebcd11b1a 100644
--- a/gdb/python/py-unwind.c
+++ b/gdb/python/py-unwind.c
@@ -914,7 +914,9 @@ pyuw_sniffer (const struct frame_unwind *self,
frame_info_ptr this_frame,
        /* `value' validation was done before, just assert.  */
        gdb_assert (value != NULL);
        gdb_assert (data_size == value->type ()->length ());

+       if (value->optimized_out ())
+         continue;
+       
        cached_reg_t *cached = new (&cached_frame->reg[i]) cached_reg_t ();
        cached->num = reg->number;
        cached->data.reset ((gdb_byte *) xmalloc (data_size));
...
we have instead:
...
(gdb) PASS: gdb.base/inline-frame-cycle-unwind.exp: cycle at level 5: maint
flush register-cache
bt^M
#0  inline_func () at inline-frame-cycle-unwind.c:49^M
#1  normal_func () at inline-frame-cycle-unwind.c:32^M
#2  0x00000000100006d4 in inline_func () at inline-frame-cycle-unwind.c:45^M
#3  normal_func () at inline-frame-cycle-unwind.c:32^M
#4  0x00000000100006d4 in inline_func () at inline-frame-cycle-unwind.c:45^M
#5  normal_func () at inline-frame-cycle-unwind.c:32^M
#6  0x00000000100007a0 in main () at inline-frame-cycle-unwind.c:56^M
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/inline-frame-cycle-unwind.exp: cycle at level 5: backtrace
when the unwind is broken at frame 5
...
which at first glance looks like the correct backtrace.

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

[Bug gdb/30548] [gdb, ppc64le, s390x] FAIL: gdb.base/inline-frame-cycle-unwind.exp: cycle at level 5: backtrace when the unwind is broken at frame 5

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30548

--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This is probably a duplicate of PR31437.

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

[Bug gdb/30548] [gdb, ppc64le, s390x] FAIL: gdb.base/inline-frame-cycle-unwind.exp: cycle at level 5: backtrace when the unwind is broken at frame 5

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30548

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

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

--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Duplicate.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 31437 ***

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