[Bug testsuite/31452] New: [gdb/testsuite] FAIL: gdb.python/py-format-address.exp: symbol_filename=on: gdb.format_address, result should have an offset

[Bug testsuite/31452] New: [gdb/testsuite] FAIL: gdb.python/py-format-address.exp: symbol_filename=on: gdb.format_address, result should have an offset

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31452

            Bug ID: 31452
           Summary: [gdb/testsuite] FAIL:
                    gdb.python/py-format-address.exp: symbol_filename=on:
                    gdb.format_address, result should have an offset
           Product: gdb
           Version: HEAD
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: testsuite
          Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
          Reporter: vries at gcc dot gnu.org
  Target Milestone: ---

On arm-linux, I ran into:
...
(gdb) python print("Got: " + gdb.format_address(0x103dd))^M
Got: 0x103dd <main at
/home/vries/gdb/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-format-address.c:30>^M
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.python/py-format-address.exp: symbol_filename=on:
gdb.format_address, result should have an offset
...

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

[Bug testsuite/31452] [gdb/testsuite] FAIL: gdb.python/py-format-address.exp: symbol_filename=on: gdb.format_address, result should have an offset

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31452

--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Tentative patch:
...
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-format-address.c
b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-format-address.c
index 2a0e9163db5..626bb41a220 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-format-address.c
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-format-address.c
@@ -28,5 +28,6 @@ FUNCTION_NAME (void)
 int
 main (void)
 {
-  return FUNCTION_NAME ();
+  int res = 0;
+  return res + FUNCTION_NAME ();
 }
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-format-address.exp
b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-format-address.exp
index 8e7cf47e03a..0fd1e63b13f 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-format-address.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.python/py-format-address.exp
@@ -40,7 +40,9 @@ if ![runto_main] {
 # for the program space and architecture (these will be selected based
 # on the current inferior).
 set main_addr [get_hexadecimal_valueof "&main" "UNKNOWN"]
-set next_addr [format 0x%x [expr $main_addr + 1]]
+
+gdb_test "next" "$decimal\[ \t\]+return .*"
+set next_addr [get_hexadecimal_valueof {$pc} "UNKNOWN"]

 foreach_with_prefix symbol_filename { on off } {
     gdb_test_no_output "set print symbol-filename ${symbol_filename}"
@@ -56,7 +58,7 @@ foreach_with_prefix symbol_filename { on off } {
        "gdb.format_address, result should have no offset"

     gdb_test "python print(\"Got: \" + gdb.format_address($next_addr))" \
-       "Got: $next_addr <main\\+1${filename_pattern}>" \
+       "Got: $next_addr <main\\+$decimal${filename_pattern}>" \
        "gdb.format_address, result should have an offset"
 }

...

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

[Bug testsuite/31452] [gdb/testsuite] FAIL: gdb.python/py-format-address.exp: symbol_filename=on: gdb.format_address, result should have an offset

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31452

--- Comment #2 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2024-June/209758.html

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

[Bug testsuite/31452] [gdb/testsuite] FAIL: gdb.python/py-format-address.exp: symbol_filename=on: gdb.format_address, result should have an offset

[cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31452

--- Comment #3 from Sourceware Commits <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Tom de Vries <vries@sourceware.org>:

https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=4429b54cc831e436d27ba6f0e3c417543c22f486

commit 4429b54cc831e436d27ba6f0e3c417543c22f486
Author: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
Date:   Thu Jun 20 16:54:47 2024 +0200

    [gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.python/py-format-address.exp on arm

    When running test-case gdb.python/py-format-address.exp on arm-linux, I
get:
    ...
    (gdb) python print("Got: " + gdb.format_address(0x103dd))^M
    Got: 0x103dd <main at py-format-address.c:30>^M
    (gdb) FAIL: $exp: symbol_filename=on: gdb.format_address, \
    result should have an offset
    ...

    What is expected here is:
    ...
    Got: 0x103dd <main+1 at py-format-address.c:30>^M
    ...

    Main starts at main_addr:
    ...
    (gdb) print /x &main^M
    $1 = 0x103dc^M
    ...
    and we obtained next_addr 0x103dd by adding 1 to it:
    ...
    set next_addr [format 0x%x [expr $main_addr + 1]]
    ...

    Adding 1 to $main_addr results in an address for a thumb function starting
at
    address 0x103dc, which is incorrect because main is an arm function
(because
    I'm running with target board unix/-marm).

    At some point during the call to format_addr, arm_addr_bits_remove removes
    the thumb bit, which causes the +1 offset to be dropped, causing the FAIL.

    Fix this by using the address of the breakpoint on main, provided it's not
at
    the very start of main.

    Tested on arm-linux.

    PR testsuite/31452
    Bug: https://www.sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31452

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

[Bug testsuite/31452] [gdb/testsuite] FAIL: gdb.python/py-format-address.exp: symbol_filename=on: gdb.format_address, result should have an offset

[vries at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31452

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

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
   Target Milestone|---                         |16.1
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Fixed.

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