From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id mRmALw+Qol/fTwAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 06:27:11 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id B83E81F08B; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 06:27:11 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA8AD1E58E for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 06:27:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33EB3385041F; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 11:27:10 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 33EB3385041F DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1604489230; bh=0P6Oarp4r9ZGNOLRqaLGapFhs8mQFUurekHblbudFfs=; h=To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=qnwkxL83nyJoKLtLOlOkxaBXQmfiVrXcPCv2fo4jLgbfBGADnw1NNsn/Yrc9MBsZt cYxZ19XUtBz46BE3+xwHfJ4uDbOgXZ1nV8Md/z/1btbr9+HAoioileah5e2HE9xi4z BGh7uaqkfgjC73igW4Frc7RZyQdD0uSCR0oH3Xyc= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E7E6385780C for ; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 11:26:49 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 3E7E6385780C Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-235-XoaRZM-DP3uF1szBvTXbCg-1; Wed, 04 Nov 2020 06:26:45 -0500 X-MC-Unique: XoaRZM-DP3uF1szBvTXbCg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1430F186DD24; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 11:26:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blade.nx (ovpn-115-156.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.115.156]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE3F75B4D8; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 11:26:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blade.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by blade.nx (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB0DD816CD2E; Wed, 4 Nov 2020 11:26:42 +0000 (GMT) To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: [PATCH v2] Fix gdb.dwarf2/clztest.exp with Clang Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2020 11:26:41 +0000 Message-Id: <1604489201-21004-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87361rsdym.fsf@tromey.com> References: <87361rsdym.fsf@tromey.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Gary Benson via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Gary Benson Cc: Tom Tromey , Andreas Schwab Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" Hi Tom, Andreas, Tom Tromey wrote: > >> Shouldn't .eh_frame always be read-only? > > Gary> I don't know. > > For a test in particular I think the question is whether the change > can somehow negatively affect the test itself; and maybe secondarily > whether some plausible and/or planned future change would break the > test. > > If not then it seems fine to move forward. GCC doesn't complain about making that section read-only, so I've updated the test to make the section read-only always. > Generally I think we'd be better off eliminating these assembly > tests in favor of something like the test suite's DWARF assembler, > though I didn't look to see whether this one would qualify. Sure, but I'm not volunteering to do this one today! ;) I've inlined an updated patch below. As before I checked it on Fedora 32 x86_64, with GCC and Clang. Is it ok for me to commit? Thanks, Gary --- Clang fails to compile gdb.dwarf2/clztest.S, with the following error: gdb compile failed, /gdbtest/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/clztest.S:181:2: error: changed section flags for .eh_frame, expected: 0x2 This commit fixes the testcase by defining .eh_frame's flags as Clang expects, as "a" rather than as "aw", thus making the section read-only. gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: * gdb.dwarf2/clztest.S (.eh_frame): Make read-only. --- gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog | 4 ++++ gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/clztest.S | 2 +- 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/clztest.S b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/clztest.S index a904fee..5e6cdae 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/clztest.S +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/clztest.S @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ _start: .LEFDE4: #NO_APP #APP - .section .eh_frame,"aw",@progbits + .section .eh_frame,"a",@progbits .Lframe1: .long .LECIE1-.LSCIE1 # Length of Common Information Entry .LSCIE1: -- 1.8.3.1