From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] XFAIL bigcore.exp on some GNU/Linux targets Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 16:49:00 -0000 Message-id: <20040510164908.GC25838@nevyn.them.org> References: <20040417214254.GA14000@nevyn.them.org> <40855D55.7000708@gnu.org> <20040421145951.GB4980@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-05/msg00287.html On Wed, Apr 21, 2004 at 10:59:51AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Apr 20, 2004 at 01:26:45PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > Why not ask the program the heap size? it's in total_allocated, just > > make that a static. > > Duh. I'll update the patch to do that before I check it in. Done like so; checked in. This replaces one PASS and two FAILs on an unpatched i386-linux target with a single XFAIL. -- Daniel Jacobowitz 2004-05-10 Daniel Jacobowitz PR external/1568 * gdb.base/bigcore.exp: Check the size of the dumped core file. XFAIL if it is smaller than bytes_allocated. * gdb.base/bigcore.c (bytes_allocated): Make static and unsigned. (main): Make chunks_allocated unsigned. Correct comment. Index: bigcore.exp =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/bigcore.exp,v retrieving revision 1.5 diff -u -p -r1.5 bigcore.exp --- bigcore.exp 9 Apr 2004 13:37:38 -0000 1.5 +++ bigcore.exp 10 May 2004 16:27:24 -0000 @@ -105,9 +105,30 @@ gdb_test "tbreak $print_core_line" gdb_test continue ".*print_string.*" gdb_test next ".*0 = 0.*" +# Check that the corefile is plausibly large enough. We're trying to +# detect the case where the operating system has truncated the file +# just before signed wraparound. TCL, unfortunately, has a similar +# problem - so use catch. It can handle the "bad" size but not necessarily +# the "good" one. And we must use GDB for the comparison, similarly. + +if {[catch {file size $corefile} core_size] == 0} { + set core_ok 0 + gdb_test_multiple "print bytes_allocated < $core_size" "check core size" { + -re " = 1\r\n$gdb_prompt $" { + pass "check core size" + set core_ok 1 + } + -re " = 0\r\n$gdb_prompt $" { + xfail "check core size (system does not support large corefiles)" + } + } + if {$core_ok == 0} { + return 0 + } +} + # Traverse part of bigcore's linked list of memory chunks (forward or -# backward), saving each chunk's address. I don't know why but -# expect_out didn't work with gdb_test_multiple. +# backward), saving each chunk's address. proc extract_heap { dir } { global gdb_prompt @@ -115,8 +136,7 @@ proc extract_heap { dir } { set heap "" set test "extract ${dir} heap" set lim 0 - send_gdb "print heap.${dir}\n" - gdb_expect { + gdb_test_multiple "print heap.${dir}" "$test" { -re " = \\(struct list \\*\\) 0x0.*$gdb_prompt $" { pass "$test" } Index: bigcore.c =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/bigcore.c,v retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -p -r1.2 bigcore.c --- bigcore.c 16 Feb 2004 18:49:09 -0000 1.2 +++ bigcore.c 10 May 2004 16:27:24 -0000 @@ -117,6 +117,8 @@ struct list static struct list dummy; static struct list heap = { &dummy, &dummy }; +static unsigned long bytes_allocated; + int main () { @@ -151,14 +153,13 @@ main () each section. The linking ensures that some, but not all, the memory is allocated. NB: Some kernels handle this efficiently - only allocating and writing out referenced pages leaving holes in - the file for unreferend pages - while others handle this poorly - - writing out all pages including those that wern't referenced. */ + the file for unmodified pages - while others handle this poorly - + writing out all pages including those that weren't modified. */ print_string ("Alocating the entire heap ...\n"); { size_t chunk_size; - long bytes_allocated = 0; - long chunks_allocated = 0; + unsigned long chunks_allocated = 0; /* Create a linked list of memory chunks. Start with MAX_CHUNK_SIZE blocks of memory and then try allocating smaller and smaller amounts until all (well at least most) memory has