gdb: add gdbarch_stack_grows_down function

  In another patch I'm working on I needed to ask: does the stack grow
down, or grow up?

Looking around I found in infcall.c some code where we needed to ask
the same question, what we do there is ask:

  gdbarch_inner_than (gdbarch, 1, 2)

which should do the job.  However, I don't particularly like copying
this, it feels like we're asking something slightly different that
just happens to align with the question we're actually asking.

I propose adding a new function `gdbarch_stack_grows_down`.  This is
not going to be a gdbarch method that can be overridden, instead, this
will just call the gdbarch_inner_than function.  We already have some
gdbarch methods like this, checkout arch-utils.c for examples.

I think it's now clearer what we're actually doing.

There should be no user visible changes after this commit.
---
 gdb/gdbarch.h | 13 +++++++++++++
 gdb/infcall.c | 10 ++++------
 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)


base-commit: cba95c27876724059c3e99ea1857fb19b9cf8220
  

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com> writes:

Andrew> I propose adding a new function `gdbarch_stack_grows_down`.  This is
Andrew> not going to be a gdbarch method that can be overridden, instead, this
Andrew> will just call the gdbarch_inner_than function.  We already have some
Andrew> gdbarch methods like this, checkout arch-utils.c for examples.

This makes sense to me.

Andrew> +  /* The current assumption is that stacks either grow down, or they grow
Andrew> +     up, so one of these checks should be true.  */
Andrew> +  gdb_assert (gdbarch_inner_than (arch, 1, 2)
Andrew> +	      || gdbarch_inner_than (arch, 2, 1));

I wonder if this would be better as a new all-arch self-test in
gdbarch-selftests.c.

Tom
  

Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com> writes:

>>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com> writes:
>
> Andrew> I propose adding a new function `gdbarch_stack_grows_down`.  This is
> Andrew> not going to be a gdbarch method that can be overridden, instead, this
> Andrew> will just call the gdbarch_inner_than function.  We already have some
> Andrew> gdbarch methods like this, checkout arch-utils.c for examples.
>
> This makes sense to me.
>
> Andrew> +  /* The current assumption is that stacks either grow down, or they grow
> Andrew> +     up, so one of these checks should be true.  */
> Andrew> +  gdb_assert (gdbarch_inner_than (arch, 1, 2)
> Andrew> +	      || gdbarch_inner_than (arch, 2, 1));
>
> I wonder if this would be better as a new all-arch self-test in
> gdbarch-selftests.c.

Great idea.  How about the update below?

Thanks,
Andrew

---

commit aedb3394b8c59c1bce7ca48b5d1a5805071eea34
Author: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>
Date:   Sun May 5 11:00:04 2024 +0100

    gdb: add gdbarch_stack_grows_down function
    
    In another patch I'm working on I needed to ask: does the stack grow
    down, or grow up?
    
    Looking around I found in infcall.c some code where we needed to ask
    the same question, what we do there is ask:
    
      gdbarch_inner_than (gdbarch, 1, 2)
    
    which should do the job.  However, I don't particularly like copying
    this, it feels like we're asking something slightly different that
    just happens to align with the question we're actually asking.
    
    I propose adding a new function `gdbarch_stack_grows_down`.  This is
    not going to be a gdbarch method that can be overridden, instead, this
    will just call the gdbarch_inner_than function.  We already have some
    gdbarch methods like this, checkout arch-utils.c for examples.
    
    I think it's now clearer what we're actually doing.
    
    A new self-test ensures that all architectures have a stack that
    either grows down, or grows up.
    
    There should be no user visible changes after this commit.

diff --git a/gdb/gdbarch-selftests.c b/gdb/gdbarch-selftests.c
index 0dc0c500654..707012bcd0d 100644
--- a/gdb/gdbarch-selftests.c
+++ b/gdb/gdbarch-selftests.c
@@ -164,6 +164,20 @@ register_name_test (struct gdbarch *gdbarch)
     }
 }
 
+/* Test gdbarch_stack_grows_down.  Stacks must either grow down or up.  */
+
+static void
+check_stack_growth (struct gdbarch *gdbarch)
+{
+  /* We don't call gdbarch_stack_grows_down here, instead we're testing the
+     implementation by calling gdbarch_inner_than.  GDB assumes that stacks
+     either grow down or up (see uses of gdbarch_stack_grows_down), so one of
+     these needs to be true.  */
+  bool stack_grows = (gdbarch_inner_than (gdbarch, 1, 2)
+		      || gdbarch_inner_than (gdbarch, 2, 1));
+  SELF_CHECK (stack_grows);
+}
+
 } // namespace selftests
 
 void _initialize_gdbarch_selftests ();
@@ -175,4 +189,7 @@ _initialize_gdbarch_selftests ()
 
   selftests::register_test_foreach_arch ("register_name",
 					 selftests::register_name_test);
+
+  selftests::register_test_foreach_arch ("stack_growth",
+					 selftests::check_stack_growth);
 }
diff --git a/gdb/gdbarch.h b/gdb/gdbarch.h
index 77d3406779f..5175ef79e5b 100644
--- a/gdb/gdbarch.h
+++ b/gdb/gdbarch.h
@@ -370,4 +370,12 @@ gdbarch_num_cooked_regs (gdbarch *arch)
   return gdbarch_num_regs (arch) + gdbarch_num_pseudo_regs (arch);
 }
 
+/* Return true if stacks for ARCH grow down, otherwise return true.  */
+
+static inline bool
+gdbarch_stack_grows_down (gdbarch *arch)
+{
+  return gdbarch_inner_than (arch, 1, 2);
+}
+
 #endif
diff --git a/gdb/infcall.c b/gdb/infcall.c
index 23d5652dd21..edac9a74179 100644
--- a/gdb/infcall.c
+++ b/gdb/infcall.c
@@ -947,7 +947,7 @@ reserve_stack_space (const type *values_type, CORE_ADDR &sp)
   struct gdbarch *gdbarch = get_frame_arch (frame);
   CORE_ADDR addr = 0;
 
-  if (gdbarch_inner_than (gdbarch, 1, 2))
+  if (gdbarch_stack_grows_down (gdbarch))
     {
       /* Stack grows downward.  Align STRUCT_ADDR and SP after
 	 making space.  */
@@ -1128,7 +1128,7 @@ call_function_by_hand_dummy (struct value *function,
 	   address.  AMD64 called that region the "red zone".  Skip at
 	   least the "red zone" size before allocating any space on
 	   the stack.  */
-	if (gdbarch_inner_than (gdbarch, 1, 2))
+	if (gdbarch_stack_grows_down (gdbarch))
 	  sp -= gdbarch_frame_red_zone_size (gdbarch);
 	else
 	  sp += gdbarch_frame_red_zone_size (gdbarch);
@@ -1156,11 +1156,9 @@ call_function_by_hand_dummy (struct value *function,
 	   to pay :-).  */
 	if (sp == old_sp)
 	  {
-	    if (gdbarch_inner_than (gdbarch, 1, 2))
-	      /* Stack grows down.  */
+	    if (gdbarch_stack_grows_down (gdbarch))
 	      sp = gdbarch_frame_align (gdbarch, old_sp - 1);
 	    else
-	      /* Stack grows up.  */
 	      sp = gdbarch_frame_align (gdbarch, old_sp + 1);
 	  }
 	/* SP may have underflown address zero here from OLD_SP.  Memory access
@@ -1193,7 +1191,7 @@ call_function_by_hand_dummy (struct value *function,
 	  {
 	    CORE_ADDR lastval_addr = lastval->address ();
 
-	    if (gdbarch_inner_than (gdbarch, 1, 2))
+	    if (gdbarch_stack_grows_down (gdbarch))
 	      {
 		gdb_assert (sp >= lastval_addr);
 		sp = lastval_addr;
  

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com> writes:

Andrew> Great idea.  How about the update below?

Andrew> +  /* We don't call gdbarch_stack_grows_down here, instead we're testing the
Andrew> +     implementation by calling gdbarch_inner_than.  GDB assumes that stacks
Andrew> +     either grow down or up (see uses of gdbarch_stack_grows_down), so one of
Andrew> +     these needs to be true.  */
Andrew> +  bool stack_grows = (gdbarch_inner_than (gdbarch, 1, 2)
Andrew> +		      || gdbarch_inner_than (gdbarch, 2, 1));

It probably should check

(gdbarch_inner_than() != 0) != (gdbarch_inner_than() != 0)

to ensure that exactly one call returns true; with the !=0 being needed
because this still returns int and not bool.

Maybe that's too nit-picky though.  TBH I doubt it would ever be an
issue as is.

Approved-By: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>

Tom
  

Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com> writes:

>>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com> writes:
>
> Andrew> Great idea.  How about the update below?
>
> Andrew> +  /* We don't call gdbarch_stack_grows_down here, instead we're testing the
> Andrew> +     implementation by calling gdbarch_inner_than.  GDB assumes that stacks
> Andrew> +     either grow down or up (see uses of gdbarch_stack_grows_down), so one of
> Andrew> +     these needs to be true.  */
> Andrew> +  bool stack_grows = (gdbarch_inner_than (gdbarch, 1, 2)
> Andrew> +		      || gdbarch_inner_than (gdbarch, 2, 1));
>
> It probably should check
>
> (gdbarch_inner_than() != 0) != (gdbarch_inner_than() != 0)
>
> to ensure that exactly one call returns true; with the !=0 being needed
> because this still returns int and not bool.
>
> Maybe that's too nit-picky though.  TBH I doubt it would ever be an
> issue as is.

Please, pick those nits!  I updated the patch inline with your
suggestion, double check the selftest still passes, and pushed the patch
below.

Thanks,
Andrew

---

commit a4f76c0765a0b9c643dc91d5a398a1cd9519572b
Author: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>
Date:   Sun May 5 11:00:04 2024 +0100

    gdb: add gdbarch_stack_grows_down function
    
    In another patch I'm working on I needed to ask: does the stack grow
    down, or grow up?
    
    Looking around I found in infcall.c some code where we needed to ask
    the same question, what we do there is ask:
    
      gdbarch_inner_than (gdbarch, 1, 2)
    
    which should do the job.  However, I don't particularly like copying
    this, it feels like we're asking something slightly different that
    just happens to align with the question we're actually asking.
    
    I propose adding a new function `gdbarch_stack_grows_down`.  This is
    not going to be a gdbarch method that can be overridden, instead, this
    will just call the gdbarch_inner_than function.  We already have some
    gdbarch methods like this, checkout arch-utils.c for examples.
    
    I think it's now clearer what we're actually doing.
    
    A new self-test ensures that all architectures have a stack that
    either grows down, or grows up.
    
    There should be no user visible changes after this commit.
    
    Approved-By: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>

diff --git a/gdb/gdbarch-selftests.c b/gdb/gdbarch-selftests.c
index 0dc0c500654..db99fe08141 100644
--- a/gdb/gdbarch-selftests.c
+++ b/gdb/gdbarch-selftests.c
@@ -164,6 +164,21 @@ register_name_test (struct gdbarch *gdbarch)
     }
 }
 
+/* Test gdbarch_stack_grows_down.  Stacks must either grow down or up.  */
+
+static void
+check_stack_growth (struct gdbarch *gdbarch)
+{
+  /* We don't call gdbarch_stack_grows_down here, instead we're testing the
+     implementation by calling gdbarch_inner_than.  GDB assumes that stacks
+     either grow down or up (see uses of gdbarch_stack_grows_down), so exactly
+     one of these needs to be true.  */
+  bool stack_grows_down = gdbarch_inner_than (gdbarch, 1, 2) != 0;
+  bool stack_grows_up = gdbarch_inner_than (gdbarch, 2, 1) != 0;
+
+  SELF_CHECK (stack_grows_up != stack_grows_down);
+}
+
 } // namespace selftests
 
 void _initialize_gdbarch_selftests ();
@@ -175,4 +190,7 @@ _initialize_gdbarch_selftests ()
 
   selftests::register_test_foreach_arch ("register_name",
 					 selftests::register_name_test);
+
+  selftests::register_test_foreach_arch ("stack_growth",
+					 selftests::check_stack_growth);
 }
diff --git a/gdb/gdbarch.h b/gdb/gdbarch.h
index 77d3406779f..d4c6795a12b 100644
--- a/gdb/gdbarch.h
+++ b/gdb/gdbarch.h
@@ -370,4 +370,12 @@ gdbarch_num_cooked_regs (gdbarch *arch)
   return gdbarch_num_regs (arch) + gdbarch_num_pseudo_regs (arch);
 }
 
+/* Return true if stacks for ARCH grow down, otherwise return true.  */
+
+static inline bool
+gdbarch_stack_grows_down (gdbarch *arch)
+{
+  return gdbarch_inner_than (arch, 1, 2) != 0;
+}
+
 #endif
diff --git a/gdb/infcall.c b/gdb/infcall.c
index 23d5652dd21..edac9a74179 100644
--- a/gdb/infcall.c
+++ b/gdb/infcall.c
@@ -947,7 +947,7 @@ reserve_stack_space (const type *values_type, CORE_ADDR &sp)
   struct gdbarch *gdbarch = get_frame_arch (frame);
   CORE_ADDR addr = 0;
 
-  if (gdbarch_inner_than (gdbarch, 1, 2))
+  if (gdbarch_stack_grows_down (gdbarch))
     {
       /* Stack grows downward.  Align STRUCT_ADDR and SP after
 	 making space.  */
@@ -1128,7 +1128,7 @@ call_function_by_hand_dummy (struct value *function,
 	   address.  AMD64 called that region the "red zone".  Skip at
 	   least the "red zone" size before allocating any space on
 	   the stack.  */
-	if (gdbarch_inner_than (gdbarch, 1, 2))
+	if (gdbarch_stack_grows_down (gdbarch))
 	  sp -= gdbarch_frame_red_zone_size (gdbarch);
 	else
 	  sp += gdbarch_frame_red_zone_size (gdbarch);
@@ -1156,11 +1156,9 @@ call_function_by_hand_dummy (struct value *function,
 	   to pay :-).  */
 	if (sp == old_sp)
 	  {
-	    if (gdbarch_inner_than (gdbarch, 1, 2))
-	      /* Stack grows down.  */
+	    if (gdbarch_stack_grows_down (gdbarch))
 	      sp = gdbarch_frame_align (gdbarch, old_sp - 1);
 	    else
-	      /* Stack grows up.  */
 	      sp = gdbarch_frame_align (gdbarch, old_sp + 1);
 	  }
 	/* SP may have underflown address zero here from OLD_SP.  Memory access
@@ -1193,7 +1191,7 @@ call_function_by_hand_dummy (struct value *function,
 	  {
 	    CORE_ADDR lastval_addr = lastval->address ();
 
-	    if (gdbarch_inner_than (gdbarch, 1, 2))
+	    if (gdbarch_stack_grows_down (gdbarch))
 	      {
 		gdb_assert (sp >= lastval_addr);
 		sp = lastval_addr;