| Message ID | 20161003203500.GA2251@host1.jankratochvil.net |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:35 PM, Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote: > The two attached patch chunks each fixes the FAIL on its own. > > The .exp patch is an obvious typo fix I think. The regex was written to > accept "ADDR in main" and I find it OK as checking .debug_line validity is not > the purpose of this testfile. > This is reasonable to me. > The .c patch will properly create a new corresponding source line .debug_line > entry for the 'mov $0x0,%eax' instruction and I also do not think it is > relevant to the purpose of this testfile. > Why do we need the second one?
On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:07:56 +0200, Yao Qi wrote: > > The .c patch will properly create a new corresponding source line .debug_line > > entry for the 'mov $0x0,%eax' instruction and I also do not think it is > > relevant to the purpose of this testfile. > > Why do we need the second one? I find it more cleaner but that is up to you. Jan
On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:19:00 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:07:56 +0200, Yao Qi wrote: > > > The .c patch will properly create a new corresponding source line .debug_line > > > entry for the 'mov $0x0,%eax' instruction and I also do not think it is > > > relevant to the purpose of this testfile. > > > > Why do we need the second one? > > I find it more cleaner but that is up to you. To make that my reason more explanatory - given the testcase expected output is affected by that missing "return 0;" and its .debug_line record I find it more clear for this testcase to put there the source line "return 0;" explicitly than to depend on such implicit line by compiler as then the debug info is unclear for that line - even among different compilers. Jan
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 5:39 PM, Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:19:00 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote: >> On Tue, 04 Oct 2016 18:07:56 +0200, Yao Qi wrote: >> > > The .c patch will properly create a new corresponding source line .debug_line >> > > entry for the 'mov $0x0,%eax' instruction and I also do not think it is >> > > relevant to the purpose of this testfile. >> > >> > Why do we need the second one? >> >> I find it more cleaner but that is up to you. > > To make that my reason more explanatory - given the testcase expected output > is affected by that missing "return 0;" and its .debug_line record I find it > more clear for this testcase to put there the source line "return 0;" > explicitly than to depend on such implicit line by compiler as then the debug > info is unclear for that line - even among different compilers. > We need the first chunk "($hex in )?main" because the unwind pc may point to the first instruction of a source line or the non-first instruction of a line. Either is possible. It doesn't matter that "callq setup" and "mov $0x0,%eax" are mapped to the same line or not. Change in gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp is good to me, but change in gdb.arch/i386-signal.c is not necessary.
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.c b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.c index c5a311e..c168d56 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.c +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.c @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ int main (void) { setup (); + return 0; } /* Create an imitation signal frame. This will work on any x86 or diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp index 276b7c0..51a3a25 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp @@ -35,6 +35,6 @@ gdb_load ${binfile} runto func gdb_test "backtrace 10" \ - "#0 ($hex in )?func.*\r\n#1 <signal handler called>\r\n#2 ($hex in)?main.*" + "#0 ($hex in )?func.*\r\n#1 <signal handler called>\r\n#2 ($hex in )?main.*" gdb_test "finish" "Run till exit from \#0 func.*<signal handler called>"
Hi, gcc-6.2.1-2.fc24.x86_64 (gdb) backtrace 10^M #0 func () at .../gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.c:26^M #1 <signal handler called>^M #2 0x0000000000400588 in main () at .../gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.c:31^M (gdb) FAIL: gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp: backtrace 10 (gdb) disas/s Dump of assembler code for function main: .../gdb/testsuite/gdb.arch/i386-signal.c: 30 { 0x000000000040057f <+0>: push %rbp 0x0000000000400580 <+1>: mov %rsp,%rbp 31 setup (); 0x0000000000400583 <+4>: callq 0x400590 <setup> => 0x0000000000400588 <+9>: mov $0x0,%eax 32 } 0x000000000040058d <+14>: pop %rbp 0x000000000040058e <+15>: retq End of assembler dump. The two attached patch chunks each fixes the FAIL on its own. The .exp patch is an obvious typo fix I think. The regex was written to accept "ADDR in main" and I find it OK as checking .debug_line validity is not the purpose of this testfile. The .c patch will properly create a new corresponding source line .debug_line entry for the 'mov $0x0,%eax' instruction and I also do not think it is relevant to the purpose of this testfile. gcc-4.8.5-11.el7.x86_64 did not put the 'mov $0x0,%eax' instruction there at all so there was no problem with .debug_line. Tested on {x86_64,x86_64-m32}-fedora24-linux-gnu. OK to check it in? Thanks, Jan gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog 2016-10-03 Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> * gdb.arch/i386-signal.c (main): Add return 0. * gdb.arch/i386-signal.exp (backtrace 10): Fix #2 typo.