From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33C2E386EC42 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 14:36:59 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 33C2E386EC42 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tdevries@suse.de X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8CA0BAC53; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 14:36:57 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix inline frame unwinding breakage To: Luis Machado , Andrew Burgess Cc: tromey@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20200414213137.24015-1-luis.machado@linaro.org> <20200414213836.24370-1-luis.machado@linaro.org> <20200422093723.GA3522@embecosm.com> <9722a14e-83af-03c6-b120-aac9816f9fc9@linaro.org> <12f56c2f-5d1f-9f98-e91a-762e76018966@suse.de> <20452d56-2189-1b67-6df0-ea26c7402a91@suse.de> <7c23ff9b-50c5-e697-c3ef-bda7db251ab2@linaro.org> From: Tom de Vries Autocrypt: addr=tdevries@suse.de; keydata= xsBNBF0ltCcBCADDhsUnMMdEXiHFfqJdXeRvgqSEUxLCy/pHek88ALuFnPTICTwkf4g7uSR7 HvOFUoUyu8oP5mNb4VZHy3Xy8KRZGaQuaOHNhZAT1xaVo6kxjswUi3vYgGJhFMiLuIHdApoc u5f7UbV+egYVxmkvVLSqsVD4pUgHeSoAcIlm3blZ1sDKviJCwaHxDQkVmSsGXImaAU+ViJ5l CwkvyiiIifWD2SoOuFexZyZ7RUddLosgsO0npVUYbl6dEMq2a5ijGF6/rBs1m3nAoIgpXk6P TCKlSWVW6OCneTaKM5C387972qREtiArTakRQIpvDJuiR2soGfdeJ6igGA1FZjU+IsM5ABEB AAHNH1RvbSBkZSBWcmllcyA8dGRldnJpZXNAc3VzZS5kZT7CwKsEEwEIAD4WIQSsnSe5hKbL MK1mGmjuhV2rbOJEoAUCXSW0JwIbAwUJA8JnAAULCQgHAgYVCgkICwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAh CRDuhV2rbOJEoBYhBKydJ7mEpsswrWYaaO6FXats4kSgc48H/Ra2lq5p3dHsrlQLqM7N68Fo eRDf3PMevXyMlrCYDGLVncQwMw3O/AkousktXKQ42DPJh65zoXB22yUt8m0g12xkLax98KFJ 5NyUloa6HflLl+wQL/uZjIdNUQaHQLw3HKwRMVi4l0/Jh/TygYG1Dtm8I4o708JS4y8GQxoQ UL0z1OM9hyM3gI2WVTTyprsBHy2EjMOu/2Xpod95pF8f90zBLajy6qXEnxlcsqreMaqmkzKn 3KTZpWRxNAS/IH3FbGQ+3RpWkNGSJpwfEMVCeyK5a1n7yt1podd1ajY5mA1jcaUmGppqx827 8TqyteNe1B/pbiUt2L/WhnTgW1NC1QDOwE0EXSW0JwEIAM99H34Bu4MKM7HDJVt864MXbx7B 1M93wVlpJ7Uq+XDFD0A0hIal028j+h6jA6bhzWto4RUfDl/9mn1StngNVFovvwtfzbamp6+W pKHZm9X5YvlIwCx131kTxCNDcF+/adRW4n8CU3pZWYmNVqhMUiPLxElA6QhXTtVBh1RkjCZQ Kmbd1szvcOfaD8s+tJABJzNZsmO2hVuFwkDrRN8Jgrh92a+yHQPd9+RybW2l7sJv26nkUH5Z 5s84P6894ebgimcprJdAkjJTgprl1nhgvptU5M9Uv85Pferoh2groQEAtRPlCGrZ2/2qVNe9 XJfSYbiyedvApWcJs5DOByTaKkcAEQEAAcLAkwQYAQgAJhYhBKydJ7mEpsswrWYaaO6FXats 4kSgBQJdJbQnAhsMBQkDwmcAACEJEO6FXats4kSgFiEErJ0nuYSmyzCtZhpo7oVdq2ziRKD3 twf7BAQBZ8TqR812zKAD7biOnWIJ0McV72PFBxmLIHp24UVe0ZogtYMxSWKLg3csh0yLVwc7 H3vldzJ9AoK3Qxp0Q6K/rDOeUy3HMqewQGcqrsRRh0NXDIQk5CgSrZslPe47qIbe3O7ik/MC q31FNIAQJPmKXX25B115MMzkSKlv4udfx7KdyxHrTSkwWZArLQiEZj5KG4cCKhIoMygPTA3U yGaIvI/BGOtHZ7bEBVUCFDFfOWJ26IOCoPnSVUvKPEOH9dv+sNy7jyBsP5QxeTqwxC/1ZtNS DUCSFQjqA6bEGwM22dP8OUY6SC94x1G81A9/xbtm9LQxKm0EiDH8KBMLfQ== Message-ID: <17474658-179a-aaaf-72b5-5a64e233c9b3@suse.de> Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:36:56 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org 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: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 14:37:01 -0000 On 24-04-2020 15:19, Luis Machado wrote: > > > On 4/24/20 9:23 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: >> On 24-04-2020 13:37, Luis Machado wrote: >>> On 4/24/20 8:08 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: >>>> On 24-04-2020 12:58, Luis Machado wrote: >>>>> On 4/24/20 7:02 AM, Luis Machado wrote: >>>>>> On 4/24/20 6:17 AM, Tom de Vries wrote: >>>>>>> On 23-04-2020 19:51, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote: >>>>>>>> On 4/22/20 8:22 AM, Luis Machado wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Andrew, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 4/22/20 6:37 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote: >>>>>>>>>> * Luis Machado via Gdb-patches >>>>>>>>>> [2020-04-14 18:38:36 -0300]: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *** re-sending due to the poor choice of characters for the >>>>>>>>>>> backtrace >>>>>>>>>>> annotations. GIT swallowed parts of it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There has been some breakage for aarch64-linux, arm-linux and >>>>>>>>>>> s390-linux in >>>>>>>>>>> terms of inline frame unwinding. There may be other targets, but >>>>>>>>>>> these are >>>>>>>>>>> the ones i'm aware of. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The following testcases started to show numerous failures and >>>>>>>>>>> trigger internal >>>>>>>>>>> errors in GDB after commit >>>>>>>>>>> 1009d92fc621bc4d017029b90a5bfab16e17fde5, >>>>>>>>>>> "Find tailcall frames before inline frames". >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> gdb.opt/inline-break.exp >>>>>>>>>>> gdb.opt/inline-cmds.exp >>>>>>>>>>> gdb.python/py-frame-inline.exp >>>>>>>>>>> gdb.reverse/insn-reverse.exp >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The internal errors were of this kind: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> binutils-gdb/gdb/frame.c:579: internal-error: frame_id >>>>>>>>>>> get_frame_id(frame_info*): Assertion `fi->level == 0' failed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I have also started seeing this assert on RISC-V, and your patch >>>>>>>>>> resolves this issue for me, so I'm keen to see this merged. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Great. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I took a look through and it all looks good to me - is there >>>>>>>>>> anything >>>>>>>>>> holding this back from being merged? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not really. I was waiting for an OK before pushing it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>> Andrew >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've pushed this now. Tromey and Andrew OK-ed it on IRC. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This causes at least: >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp: tailcall: bt >>>>>>> FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp: tailcall: p i >>>>>>> FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp: tailcall: p i@entry >>>>>>> FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp: tailcall: p j >>>>>>> FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp: tailcall: p j@entry >>>>>>> FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp: p $sp0 == $sp >>>>>>> FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp: frame 3 >>>>>>> FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp: down >>>>>>> FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp: disassemble >>>>>>> FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp: ambiguous: bt >>>>>>> FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp: self: bt >>>>>>> FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp: self: bt debug entry-values >>>>>>> FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-tailcall-cxx.exp: bt >>>>>>> FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-tailcall-noret.exp: bt >>>>>>> FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-tailcall-self.exp: bt >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking at the first FAIL, before this commit we have: >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> (gdb) PASS: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp: continue to breakpoint: >>>>>>> tailcall: breakhere >>>>>>> bt^M >>>>>>> #0  d (i=71, i@entry=70, j=73.5, j@entry=72.5) at >>>>>>> gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.cc:34^M >>>>>>> #1  0x00000000004006af in c (i=i@entry=7, j=j@entry=7.25) at >>>>>>> gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.cc:47^M >>>>>>> #2  0x00000000004006cd in b (i=i@entry=5, j=j@entry=5.25) at >>>>>>> gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.cc:59^M >>>>>>> #3  0x0000000000400524 in main () at >>>>>>> gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.cc:229^M >>>>>>> (gdb) PASS: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp: tailcall: bt >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> which has now degraded into: >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> (gdb) PASS: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp: continue to breakpoint: >>>>>>> tailcall: breakhere >>>>>>> bt^M >>>>>>> #0  d (i=, j=) at >>>>>>> gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.cc:34^M >>>>>>> #1  0x0000000000400524 in main () at >>>>>>> gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.cc:229^M >>>>>>> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp: tailcall: bt >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> - Tom >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'll take a look at it. >>>>> >>>>> Just a quick update... I did a before/after run and the only >>>>> regression >>>>> seems to be from gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp. >>>>> >>>>> The other failures are still there even after reverting the inline >>>>> frame >>>>> unwinding fix. >>>>> >>>>> I'll check what's up with the regressed test. >>>>> >>>>> Could you please confirm this when you have some cycles? >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I cannot confirm this.  All these FAILs fail with the patch, and pass >>>> with the patch reverted. >>>> >>>> Looking at amd64-tailcall-cxx.exp, we have normally: >>>> ... >>>> (gdb) bt^M >>>> #0  g (x=x@entry=2) at gdb.arch/amd64-tailcall-cxx1.cc:23^M >>>> #1  0x00000000004004e8 in f (x=x@entry=1) at >>>> gdb.arch/amd64-tailcall-cxx2.cc:23^M >>>> #2  0x00000000004003de in main () at >>>> gdb.arch/amd64-tailcall-cxx1.cc:31^M >>>> (gdb) PASS: gdb.arch/amd64-tailcall-cxx.exp: bt >>>> ... >>>> and with the patch: >>>> ... >>>> (gdb) bt^M >>>> #0  g (x=2) at gdb.arch/amd64-tailcall-cxx1.cc:23^M >>>> #1  0x00000000004003de in main () at >>>> gdb.arch/amd64-tailcall-cxx1.cc:31^M >>>> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-tailcall-cxx.exp: bt >>>> ... >>>> >>>> So, I'd say it looks very similar to the issue in >>>> gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value.exp. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> - Tom >>>> >>> >>> Ok. I double-checked this and I'm still seeing failures for those that i >>> mentioned, even with the patch reverted. It may be the case that these >>> tests are not supposed to pass (or the testcase has issues) on non-amd64 >>> targets (running Intel here). >>> >> >> Also Intel here (FWIW: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6600U CPU @ 2.60GHz). >> > > Yikes. I have the exact same. There may be system differences affecting > the tests then (libraries and/or compiler). > > I have this compiler: gcc version 7.5.0 (Ubuntu 7.5.0-3ubuntu1~18.04). > > >>> I'll work with the testcase that does show the issue. Hopefully a fix >>> for that will address all the others, but i may need further >>> confirmation. >> >> Understood. >> >> Can you file a PR for the amd64-tailcall-cxx.exp FAIL that you're seeing >> before the patch, and attach the exec? > > Sure. But before i do that, i have these failure with the patch reverted: > > FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value-inline.exp: p y > FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value-param-dwarf5.exp: call 1: p y > FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value-param-dwarf5.exp: call 1: p b > FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value-param-dwarf5.exp: call 2: p y > FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value-param-dwarf5.exp: call 2: p b > FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value-param-dwarf5.exp: call 3: p y > FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value-param-dwarf5.exp: call 3: p b > FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value-param.exp: call 1: p y > FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value-param.exp: call 1: p b > FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value-param.exp: call 2: p y > FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value-param.exp: call 2: p b > FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value-param.exp: call 3: p y > FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value-param.exp: call 3: p b > FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-entry-value-paramref.exp: frame > FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-tailcall-cxx.exp: bt > FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-tailcall-noret.exp: bt > FAIL: gdb.arch/amd64-tailcall-self.exp: bt > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: only: entry_equal: stop (stopped > at wrong place) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: only: entry_equal: > -stack-list-variables (unexpected output) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: only: entry_different: stop > (stopped at wrong place) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: only: entry_different: > -stack-list-variables (unexpected output) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: only: validity: stop (stopped at > wrong place) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: only: validity: > -stack-list-variables (unexpected output) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: preferred: entry_equal: stop > (stopped at wrong place) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: preferred: entry_equal: > -stack-list-variables (unexpected output) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: preferred: entry_different: stop > (stopped at wrong place) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: preferred: entry_different: > -stack-list-variables (unexpected output) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: preferred: validity: stop > (stopped at wrong place) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: preferred: validity: > -stack-list-variables (unexpected output) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: if-needed: validity: stop > (stopped at wrong place) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: if-needed: validity: > -stack-list-variables (unexpected output) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: both: entry_equal: stop (stopped > at wrong place) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: both: entry_equal: > -stack-list-variables (unexpected output) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: both: entry_different: stop > (stopped at wrong place) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: both: entry_different: > -stack-list-variables (unexpected output) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: both: validity: stop (stopped at > wrong place) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: both: validity: > -stack-list-variables (unexpected output) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: compact: entry_equal: stop > (stopped at wrong place) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: compact: entry_equal: > -stack-list-variables (unexpected output) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: compact: entry_different: stop > (stopped at wrong place) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: compact: entry_different: > -stack-list-variables (unexpected output) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: compact: validity: stop (stopped > at wrong place) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: compact: validity: > -stack-list-variables (unexpected output) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: default: entry_equal: stop > (stopped at wrong place) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: default: entry_equal: > -stack-list-variables (unexpected output) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: default: entry_different: stop > (stopped at wrong place) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: default: entry_different: > -stack-list-variables (unexpected output) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: default: validity: stop (stopped > at wrong place) > FAIL: gdb.mi/mi2-amd64-entry-value.exp: default: validity: > -stack-list-variables (unexpected output) > > Also a bunch of failures for gdb.base/gnu-ifunc.exp, but i think this is > unrelated. > > Which ones do you want me to open bugs against? I think you're running into https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24892 . I can reproduce the same failure by running with target board unix/-fPIE/-pie. Thanks, - Tom