gdb/testsuite: fix gdb.guile/scm-parameter.exp "wrong type argument" test pattern

  Since commit 90319cefe3 ("GDB/Guile: Don't assert that an integer value
is boolean"), I see:

    FAIL: gdb.guile/scm-parameter.exp: kind=PARAM_ZINTEGER: test-PARAM_ZINTEGER-param: guile (set-parameter-value! test-PARAM_ZINTEGER-param #:unlimited)
    FAIL: gdb.guile/scm-parameter.exp: kind=PARAM_ZUINTEGER: test-PARAM_ZUINTEGER-param: guile (set-parameter-value! test-PARAM_ZUINTEGER-param #:unlimited)

This comes from the fact that GDB outputs this:

    ERROR: In procedure set-parameter-value!:
    In procedure gdbscm_set_parameter_value_x: Wrong type argument in position 2 (expecting integer): #:unlimited
    Error while executing Scheme code.

while the test expects an additional "ERROR:" on the second line,
something like this:

    ERROR: In procedure set-parameter-value!:
    ERROR: In procedure gdbscm_set_parameter_value_x: Wrong type argument in position 2 (expecting integer): #:unlimited
    Error while executing Scheme code.

The patch below fixes the test for me.

I believe that the first two lines are output by Guile itself, in the
SCM_ASSERT_TYPE macro.  I tried on different systems, different Guile
versions (2.0, 2.2 and 3.0) and I always get the former output, never
the output the test expects.  I presume the patch below isn't right, as
there is surely some systems that do print the latter output, otherwise
Maciej (the original author) would have noticed it.  I presume we'll
need to accept both outputs.  But I'd like we if could clarify when we
get which.

Change-Id: I9dc45e7492a4f08340cad974610242ed689de959
---
 gdb/testsuite/gdb.guile/scm-parameter.exp | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
  

On Mon, 24 Oct 2022, Simon Marchi wrote:

> I believe that the first two lines are output by Guile itself, in the
> SCM_ASSERT_TYPE macro.  I tried on different systems, different Guile
> versions (2.0, 2.2 and 3.0) and I always get the former output, never
> the output the test expects.  I presume the patch below isn't right, as
> there is surely some systems that do print the latter output, otherwise
> Maciej (the original author) would have noticed it.  I presume we'll
> need to accept both outputs.  But I'd like we if could clarify when we
> get which.

 FTR I'm still looking into it and like you I have hesitated to just paper 
the issue over by allowing both outputs without first understanding what 
is really going on here.  I cannot rule out a distribution-specific patch 
causing a discrepancy here, but I feel like tracking it down.

 NB guile 2.0.13 here, reporting as:

guile (GNU Guile) 2.0.13
Packaged by Debian (2.0.13-deb+1-5.4)

(and it seems like I have said version consistently throughout my relevant 
development machines except for different "-deb+..." suffixes).  It must 
have had long distribution maintenance history.

  Maciej
  

On 2022-10-24 19:22, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2022, Simon Marchi wrote:
> 
>> I believe that the first two lines are output by Guile itself, in the
>> SCM_ASSERT_TYPE macro.  I tried on different systems, different Guile
>> versions (2.0, 2.2 and 3.0) and I always get the former output, never
>> the output the test expects.  I presume the patch below isn't right, as
>> there is surely some systems that do print the latter output, otherwise
>> Maciej (the original author) would have noticed it.  I presume we'll
>> need to accept both outputs.  But I'd like we if could clarify when we
>> get which.
> 
>  FTR I'm still looking into it and like you I have hesitated to just paper 
> the issue over by allowing both outputs without first understanding what 
> is really going on here.  I cannot rule out a distribution-specific patch 
> causing a discrepancy here, but I feel like tracking it down.
> 
>  NB guile 2.0.13 here, reporting as:
> 
> guile (GNU Guile) 2.0.13
> Packaged by Debian (2.0.13-deb+1-5.4)

According to that version number, it looks like Ubuntu 20.04?

  https://packages.ubuntu.com/focal/guile-2.0

I tried building on Ubuntu 20.04 against guile-2.0, and I see the same
result as you.  And when I try guile2.0 on Arch Linux (this package
[1]), I also see the same result as you.  So I must have tested it wrong
previously.

You can dig further if you want, but I'd be fine just accepting both
outputs and saying that guile-2.0 outputs the additional ERROR: while
subsequent versions do not.

Simon

[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/guile2.0
  

On 10/25/22 03:08, Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2022-10-24 19:22, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2022, Simon Marchi wrote:
>>
>>> I believe that the first two lines are output by Guile itself, in the
>>> SCM_ASSERT_TYPE macro.  I tried on different systems, different Guile
>>> versions (2.0, 2.2 and 3.0) and I always get the former output, never
>>> the output the test expects.  I presume the patch below isn't right, as
>>> there is surely some systems that do print the latter output, otherwise
>>> Maciej (the original author) would have noticed it.  I presume we'll
>>> need to accept both outputs.  But I'd like we if could clarify when we
>>> get which.
>>
>>   FTR I'm still looking into it and like you I have hesitated to just paper
>> the issue over by allowing both outputs without first understanding what
>> is really going on here.  I cannot rule out a distribution-specific patch
>> causing a discrepancy here, but I feel like tracking it down.
>>
>>   NB guile 2.0.13 here, reporting as:
>>
>> guile (GNU Guile) 2.0.13
>> Packaged by Debian (2.0.13-deb+1-5.4)
> 
> According to that version number, it looks like Ubuntu 20.04?
> 
>    https://packages.ubuntu.com/focal/guile-2.0
> 
> I tried building on Ubuntu 20.04 against guile-2.0, and I see the same
> result as you.  And when I try guile2.0 on Arch Linux (this package
> [1]), I also see the same result as you.  So I must have tested it wrong
> previously.
> 
> You can dig further if you want, but I'd be fine just accepting both
> outputs and saying that guile-2.0 outputs the additional ERROR: while
> subsequent versions do not.
> 

FWIW, I did the same here in commit 6bbe1a929c6 ("[gdb/testsuite] Fix 
gdb.guile/scm-breakpoint.exp with guile 3.0").

Thanks,
- Tom
  

On 10/26/22 03:15, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 10/25/22 03:08, Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2022-10-24 19:22, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Oct 2022, Simon Marchi wrote:
>>>
>>>> I believe that the first two lines are output by Guile itself, in the
>>>> SCM_ASSERT_TYPE macro.  I tried on different systems, different Guile
>>>> versions (2.0, 2.2 and 3.0) and I always get the former output, never
>>>> the output the test expects.  I presume the patch below isn't right, as
>>>> there is surely some systems that do print the latter output, otherwise
>>>> Maciej (the original author) would have noticed it.  I presume we'll
>>>> need to accept both outputs.  But I'd like we if could clarify when we
>>>> get which.
>>>
>>>   FTR I'm still looking into it and like you I have hesitated to just paper
>>> the issue over by allowing both outputs without first understanding what
>>> is really going on here.  I cannot rule out a distribution-specific patch
>>> causing a discrepancy here, but I feel like tracking it down.
>>>
>>>   NB guile 2.0.13 here, reporting as:
>>>
>>> guile (GNU Guile) 2.0.13
>>> Packaged by Debian (2.0.13-deb+1-5.4)
>>
>> According to that version number, it looks like Ubuntu 20.04?
>>
>>    https://packages.ubuntu.com/focal/guile-2.0
>>
>> I tried building on Ubuntu 20.04 against guile-2.0, and I see the same
>> result as you.  And when I try guile2.0 on Arch Linux (this package
>> [1]), I also see the same result as you.  So I must have tested it wrong
>> previously.
>>
>> You can dig further if you want, but I'd be fine just accepting both
>> outputs and saying that guile-2.0 outputs the additional ERROR: while
>> subsequent versions do not.
>>
> 
> FWIW, I did the same here in commit 6bbe1a929c6 ("[gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.guile/scm-breakpoint.exp with guile 3.0").

Thanks, then I just went ahead and pushed this:


From ee7f721ea2f51cd6cda301ce6a68e84f61c31e0c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2022 12:43:38 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] gdb/testsuite: fix gdb.guile/scm-parameter.exp "wrong type
 argument" test pattern for Guile >= 2.2

Since commit 90319cefe3 ("GDB/Guile: Don't assert that an integer value
is boolean"), I see:

    FAIL: gdb.guile/scm-parameter.exp: kind=PARAM_ZINTEGER: test-PARAM_ZINTEGER-param: guile (set-parameter-value! test-PARAM_ZINTEGER-param #:unlimited)
    FAIL: gdb.guile/scm-parameter.exp: kind=PARAM_ZUINTEGER: test-PARAM_ZUINTEGER-param: guile (set-parameter-value! test-PARAM_ZUINTEGER-param #:unlimited)

This comes from the fact that GDB outputs this:

    ERROR: In procedure set-parameter-value!:
    In procedure gdbscm_set_parameter_value_x: Wrong type argument in position 2 (expecting integer): #:unlimited
    Error while executing Scheme code.

while the test expects an additional "ERROR:" on the second line,
something like this:

    ERROR: In procedure set-parameter-value!:
    ERROR: In procedure gdbscm_set_parameter_value_x: Wrong type argument in position 2 (expecting integer): #:unlimited
    Error while executing Scheme code.

Guile 2.0 outputs the `ERROR:` on the second line, while later versions
do not.  Change the pattern to accept both outputs.  This is similar to
commit 6bbe1a929c6 ("[gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.guile/scm-breakpoint.exp
with guile 3.0").

Change-Id: I9dc45e7492a4f08340cad974610242ed689de959
---
 gdb/testsuite/gdb.guile/scm-parameter.exp | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.guile/scm-parameter.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.guile/scm-parameter.exp
index b9f2d8252117..0b2076c40576 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.guile/scm-parameter.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.guile/scm-parameter.exp
@@ -183,10 +183,10 @@ foreach_with_prefix kind {
 	"end"

     set param_integer_error \
-	"ERROR: In procedure set-parameter-value!:\r\nERROR: In procedure\
-	 gdbscm_set_parameter_value_x: Wrong type argument in position 2\
-	 \\(expecting integer\\): #:unlimited\r\nError while executing Scheme\
-	 code\\."
+	[multi_line \
+	    "ERROR: In procedure set-parameter-value!:" \
+	    "(ERROR: )?In procedure gdbscm_set_parameter_value_x: Wrong type argument in position 2 \\(expecting integer\\): #:unlimited" \
+	    "Error while executing Scheme code\\."]
     set param_minus_one_error "integer -1 out of range"
     set param_minus_two_range "integer -2 out of range"
     set param_minus_two_unlimited "only -1 is allowed to set as unlimited"