[RFA] Some testcases for long long bitfields

[RFA] Some testcases for long long bitfields

[Paul Hilfinger]

Since some mailers appear to have been adapted from dog simulations (causing
them to eat large sections of selected messages), I am resending drafts
of two files containing some test cases for selecting and setting long
long bit-fields.

OK?

Paul Hilfinger

2004-11-01  Paul N. Hilfinger  <Hilfinger@gnat.com>

	* values.c (modify_field): Correct handling of bit-fields that
	don't fit in 32 bits.  Use unsigned operations throughout and 
	simplify the code a bit.  Document preconditions.

Index: merge.237/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/bitfields2.exp
--- merge.237/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/bitfields2.exp Mon, 01 Nov 2004 03:28:53 -0800 hilfingr ()
+++ merge.239(w)/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/bitfields2.exp Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:51:17 -0700 hilfingr (GdbPub/q/c/36_bitfields2 1.1 644)
@@ -0,0 +1,325 @@
+# Copyright 1992, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+
+# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+# the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+# (at your option) any later version.
+# 
+# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+# GNU General Public License for more details.
+# 
+# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+# along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
+# Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.  
+
+# Please email any bugs, comments, and/or additions to this file to:
+# bug-gdb@prep.ai.mit.edu
+
+# This file was adapted from bitfields.exp by Paul Hilfinger 
+# (Hilfinger@gnat.com)
+
+#
+# Tests for bit-fields that do not fit in type (unsigned) int, but do fit 
+# in type (unsigned) long long.  We perform essentially the same tests as
+# in bitfields.c, which considers only bit-fields that are <= 9 bits long.
+#
+
+if $tracelevel then {
+	strace $tracelevel
+}
+
+set prms_id 0
+set bug_id 0
+
+set testfile "bitfields2"
+set srcfile ${testfile}.c
+set binfile ${objdir}/${subdir}/${testfile}
+if  { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable {debug}] != "" } {
+    gdb_suppress_entire_file "Testcase compile failed, so all tests in this file will automatically fail."
+}
+
+set no_signed 0
+
+#
+# Test bitfield locating and uniqueness.
+# For each member, set that member to 1 and verify that the member (and only
+# that member) is 1, then reset it back to 0.
+#
+
+proc bitfield_uniqueness {} {
+    global decimal
+    global hex
+    global gdb_prompt
+    global srcfile
+
+    if { ! [runto break1] } {
+	gdb_suppress_tests;
+    }
+	
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" ".*u1 = 0, u2 = 0, u3 = 0, s1 = 1, s2 = 0, s3 = 0.*" "bitfield uniqueness (s1)"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests;
+    }
+    if [gdb_test "cont" "Break.*break1 \\(\\) at .*$srcfile:$decimal.*" "continuing to break1 #1"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests;
+    }
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" ".*u1 = 1, u2 = 0, u3 = 0, s1 = 0, s2 = 0, s3 = 0.*" "bitfield uniqueness (u1)"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests;
+    }
+    if [gdb_test "cont" "Break.*break1 \\(\\) at .*$srcfile:$decimal.*" "continuing to break1 #2"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests;
+    }
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" ".*u1 = 0, u2 = 0, u3 = 0, s1 = 0, s2 = 1, s3 = 0.*" "bitfield uniqueness (s2)"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests;
+    }
+    if [gdb_test "cont" "Break.*break1 \\(\\) at .*$srcfile:$decimal.*" "continuing to break1 #3"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests;
+    }
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" ".*u1 = 0, u2 = 1, u3 = 0, s1 = 0, s2 = 0, s3 = 0.*" "bitfield uniqueness (u2)"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests;
+    }
+    if [gdb_test "cont" "Break.*break1 \\(\\) at .*$srcfile:$decimal.*" "continuing to break1 #4"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests;
+    }
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" ".*u1 = 0, u2 = 0, u3 = 0, s1 = 0, s2 = 0, s3 = 1.*" "bitfield uniqueness (s3)"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests;
+    }
+    if [gdb_test "cont" "Break.*break1 \\(\\) at .*$srcfile:$decimal.*" "continuing to break1 #5"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests;
+    }
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" ".*u1 = 0, u2 = 0, u3 = 1, s1 = 0, s2 = 0, s3 = 0.*" "bitfield uniqueness (u3)"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+    gdb_stop_suppressing_tests;
+}
+
+
+#
+# Test bitfield containment.
+# Fill alternating fields with all 1's and verify that none of the bits
+# "bleed over" to the other fields.
+#
+
+proc bitfield_containment {} {
+    global decimal
+    global hex
+    global gdb_prompt
+    global srcfile
+
+    delete_breakpoints
+
+    if { ![runto break2] } {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+
+    # If program is compiled with Sun CC, signed fields print out as their
+    # actual sizes; if compiled with gcc, they print out as 0xffffffff.
+    if [gdb_test "print/x flags" "= {u1 = 0x7fff, u2 = 0x0, u3 = 0xffff, s1 = 0x0, s2 = 0x(1ffffffff|f*), s3 = 0x0}" "bitfield containment #1"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+
+    if [gdb_test "cont" "Break.*break2 \\(\\) at .*$srcfile:$decimal.*" "continuing to break2"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+
+    if [gdb_test "print/x flags" "= {u1 = 0x0, u2 = 0x1ffffffff, u3 = 0x0, s1 = 0x(7fff|f*), s2 = 0x0, s3 = 0xf*}" "bitfield containment #2"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+    gdb_stop_suppressing_tests;
+}
+
+# Test unsigned bitfields for unsignedness and range.
+# Fill the unsigned fields with the maximum positive value and verify that
+# the values are printed correctly.
+
+proc bitfield_unsignedness {} {
+    global decimal
+    global hex
+    global gdb_prompt
+    global srcfile
+
+    delete_breakpoints
+
+    if { ![runto break3] } {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" ".*u1 = 32767, u2 = 8589934591, u3 = 65535, s1 = 0, s2 = 0, s3 = 0.*" "unsigned bitfield ranges"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+    gdb_stop_suppressing_tests;
+}
+
+#
+# Test signed bitfields for signedness and range.
+# Fill the signed fields with the maximum positive value, then the maximally
+# negative value, then -1, and verify in each case that the values are
+# printed correctly.
+#
+
+proc bitfield_signedness {} {
+    global decimal
+    global hex
+    global gdb_prompt
+    global srcfile
+    global no_signed
+
+    delete_breakpoints
+
+    if { ! [runto break4] } {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" "= {.*u1 = 0, u2 = 0, u3 = 0, s1 = 16383, s2 = 4294967295, s3 = 32767.*}" "signed bitfields, max positive values"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+
+    if [gdb_test "cont" "Break.*break4 \\(\\) at .*$srcfile:$decimal.*" "continuing to break4 #1"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+
+    # Determine if the target has signed bitfields so we can xfail the
+    # the signed bitfield tests if it doesn't.
+    set no_signed 1
+    send_gdb "print i\n"
+    gdb_expect {
+	-re ".* = -32768.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    set no_signed 0
+	    pass "determining signed-ness of bitfields"
+	}
+	-re ".* = 32768.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    pass "determining signed-ness of bitfields"
+	    setup_xfail "*-*-*"
+	}
+	-re ".*$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    fail "determining signed-ness of bitfields"
+	    gdb_suppress_tests
+	}
+	default { 
+	    fail "determining signed-ness of bitfields" ;
+	    gdb_suppress_tests;
+	}
+    }
+
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" "u1 = 0, u2 = 0, u3 = 0, s1 = -16384, s2 = -4294967296, s3 = -32768.*" "signed bitfields, max negative values"] {
+        gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+
+    if [gdb_test "cont" "Break.*break4 \\(\\) at .*$srcfile:$decimal.*" "continuing to break4 #2"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" "u1 = 0, u2 = 0, u3 = 0, s1 = -1, s2 = -1, s3 = -1.*" "signed bitfields with -1"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+    # Hmmmm???
+    gdb_stop_suppressing_tests;
+}
+
+
+# Test setting of long long bit fields from within GDB.
+
+proc bitfield_set {} {
+    global decimal
+    global hex
+    global gdb_prompt
+    global srcfile
+    global no_signed
+
+    delete_breakpoints
+
+    if { ! [runto break5] } {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+
+    set big_set_failed 0
+    set test "set long long unsigned bitfield"
+    gdb_test_multiple "print flags.u2 = 0x100000000" $test {
+	-re "warning: Value does not fit.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    fail "$test"
+	    gdb_suppress_tests
+	}
+	-re "= 4294967296.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    pass "$test"
+	}
+    }
+
+    set test "set long long signed bitfield positive"
+    gdb_test_multiple "print flags.s2 = 0x80000000" $test {
+	-re "warning: Value does not fit.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    fail "$test"
+	    gdb_suppress_tests
+	}
+	-re "= 2147483648.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    pass "$test"
+	}
+    }
+
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" "u1 = 0, u2 = 4294967296, u3 = 0, s1 = 0, s2 = 2147483648, s3 = 0.*" "long long bitfield values after set"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+
+    if $no_signed then {
+	setup_xfail "*-*-*"
+    }
+    set test "set long long signed bitfield negative"
+    gdb_test_multiple "print flags.s2 = -1" $test {
+	-re "warning: Value does not fit.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    fail "$test"
+	    gdb_suppress_tests
+	}
+	-re "= -1.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    pass "$test"
+	}
+    }
+
+    if $no_signed then {
+	setup_xfail "*-*-*"
+    }
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" "u1 = 0, u2 = 4294967296, u3 = 0, s1 = 0, s2 = -1, s3 = 0.*" "long long bitfield values after set negative"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+    gdb_stop_suppressing_tests;
+}
+
+gdb_start
+gdb_reinitialize_dir $srcdir/$subdir
+gdb_load ${binfile}
+
+send_gdb "set print sevenbit-strings\n" ; gdb_expect -re "$gdb_prompt $"
+
+bitfield_uniqueness
+if [istarget "mips-idt-*"] then {
+    # Restart because IDT/SIM runs out of file descriptors.
+    gdb_exit
+    gdb_start
+    gdb_reinitialize_dir $srcdir/$subdir
+    gdb_load ${binfile}
+}
+bitfield_containment
+if [istarget "mips-idt-*"] then {
+    # Restart because IDT/SIM runs out of file descriptors.
+    gdb_exit
+    gdb_start
+    gdb_reinitialize_dir $srcdir/$subdir
+    gdb_load ${binfile}
+}
+bitfield_unsignedness
+if [istarget "mips-idt-*"] then {
+    # Restart because IDT/SIM runs out of file descriptors.
+    gdb_exit
+    gdb_start
+    gdb_reinitialize_dir $srcdir/$subdir
+    gdb_load ${binfile}
+}
+bitfield_signedness
+if [istarget "mips-idt-*"] then {
+    # Restart because IDT/SIM runs out of file descriptors.
+    gdb_exit
+    gdb_start
+    gdb_reinitialize_dir $srcdir/$subdir
+    gdb_load ${binfile}
+}
+bitfield_set
+
Index: merge.237/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/bitfields2.c
--- merge.237/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/bitfields2.c Mon, 01 Nov 2004 03:28:53 -0800 hilfingr ()
+++ merge.239(w)/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/bitfields2.c Sun, 31 Oct 2004 00:51:17 -0700 hilfingr (GdbPub/q/c/37_bitfields2 1.1 644)
@@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
+/* Test program to test bit field operations on bit fields of large
+   integer types.  */
+
+/* This file is expected to fail to compile if the type long long int
+   is not supported, but in that case it is irrelevant.  */
+
+#if !defined(__STDC__) && !defined(__cplusplus)
+#define signed  /**/
+#endif
+
+struct fields
+{
+  unsigned long long u1 : 15;
+  unsigned long long u2 : 33;
+  unsigned long long u3 : 16;
+  signed long long   s1 : 15;
+  signed long long   s2 : 33;
+  signed long long   s3 : 16;
+} flags;
+
+void break1 ()
+{
+}
+
+void break2 ()
+{
+}
+
+void break3 ()
+{
+}
+
+void break4 ()
+{
+}
+
+void break5 ()
+{
+}
+
+void break6 ()
+{
+}
+
+void break7 ()
+{
+}
+
+void break8 ()
+{
+}
+
+void break9 ()
+{
+}
+
+void break10 ()
+{
+}
+
+/* This is used by bitfields.exp to determine if the target understands
+   signed bitfields.  */
+int i;
+
+int main ()
+{
+  /* For each member, set that member to 1, allow gdb to verify that the
+     member (and only that member) is 1, and then reset it back to 0. */
+
+#ifdef usestubs
+  set_debug_traps();
+  breakpoint();
+#endif
+  flags.s1 = 1;
+  break1 ();
+  flags.s1 = 0;
+
+  flags.u1 = 1;
+  break1 ();
+  flags.u1 = 0;
+
+  flags.s2  = 1;
+  break1 ();
+  flags.s2 = 0;
+
+  flags.u2 = 1;
+  break1 ();
+  flags.u2 = 0;
+
+  flags.s3  = 1;
+  break1 ();
+  flags.s3 = 0;
+
+  flags.u3 = 1;
+  break1 ();
+  flags.u3 = 0;
+
+  /* Fill alternating fields with all 1's and verify that none of the bits
+     "bleed over" to the other fields. */
+
+  flags.u1 = 0x7FFF;
+  flags.u3 = 0xFFFF;
+  flags.s2 = -1LL;
+  break2 ();
+  flags.u1 = 0;
+  flags.u3 = 0;
+  flags.s2 = 0;
+
+  flags.u2 = 0x1FFFFFFFFLL;
+  flags.s1 = -1;
+  flags.s3 = -1;
+  break2 ();
+
+  flags.u2 = 0;
+  flags.s1 = 0;
+  flags.s3 = 0;
+
+  /* Fill the unsigned fields with the maximum positive value and verify
+     that the values are printed correctly. */
+
+  flags.u1 = 0x7FFF;
+  flags.u2 = 0x1FFFFFFFFLL;
+  flags.u3 = 0xFFFF;
+  break3 ();
+  flags.u1 = 0;
+  flags.u2 = 0;
+  flags.u3 = 0;
+
+  /* Fill the signed fields with the maximum positive value, then the maximally
+     negative value, then -1, and verify in each case that the values are
+     printed correctly. */
+
+  /* Maximum positive values */
+  flags.s1 = 0x3FFF;
+  flags.s2 = 0xFFFFFFFFLL;
+  flags.s3 = 0x7FFF;
+  break4 ();
+
+  /* Maximally negative values */
+  flags.s1 = -0x4000;
+  flags.s2 = -0x100000000LL;
+  flags.s3 = -0x8000;
+
+  /* Extract bitfield value so that bitfield.exp can check if the target
+     understands signed bitfields.  */
+  i = flags.s3;
+  break4 ();
+
+  /* -1 */
+  flags.s1 = -1;
+  flags.s2 = -1;
+  flags.s3 = -1;
+  break4 ();
+
+  flags.s1 = 0;
+  flags.s2 = 0;
+  flags.s3 = 0;
+
+  break5 ();
+
+  return 0;
+}

Re: [RFA] Some testcases for long long bitfields

[Andrew Cagney]

Here we go :-)

- which system was it tested on?

- loose this:
> +# Please email any bugs, comments, and/or additions to this file to:
> +# bug-gdb@prep.ai.mit.edu

- reword the tests from:
> "bitfield uniqueness (u1)"
to something like:
	bitfield uniqueness; flags.u1 = 1
so that what's being tested is clearer and the names are unique.

- on similar lines, take the gdb.sum file  from running this testand put 
it through 'uniq -d' s.fixing any duplicate

- use gdb_test_multiple
> +    # Determine if the target has signed bitfields so we can xfail the
> +    # the signed bitfield tests if it doesn't.
> +    set no_signed 1
> +    send_gdb "print i\n"
> +    gdb_expect {
> +	-re ".* = -32768.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> +	    set no_signed 0
> +	    pass "determining signed-ness of bitfields"
> +	}

- Why?  Or is this really a known bug?
> +    if $no_signed then {
> +	setup_xfail "*-*-*"
> +    }
> +    set test "set long long signed bitfield negative"
> +    gdb_test_multiple "print flags.s2 = -1" $test {
> +	-re "warning: Value does not fit.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> +	    fail "$test"
> +	    gdb_suppress_tests
> +	}
> +	-re "= -1.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> +	    pass "$test"
> +	}
> +    }

- ditto?
> +    if $no_signed then {
> +	setup_xfail "*-*-*"
> +    }
> +    if [gdb_test "print flags" "u1 = 0, u2 = 4294967296, u3 = 0, s1 = 0, s2 = -1, s3 = 0.*" "long long bitfield values after set negative"] {
> +	gdb_suppress_tests
> +    }
> +    gdb_stop_suppressing_tests;
> +}

> +bitfield_uniqueness

- delete this:
> +if [istarget "mips-idt-*"] then {
> +    # Restart because IDT/SIM runs out of file descriptors.
> +    gdb_exit
> +    gdb_start
> +    gdb_reinitialize_dir $srcdir/$subdir
> +    gdb_load ${binfile}
> +}

- for all these:
+    if { ! [runto break5] } {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
perhaphs think about what I did for the sig*.exp tests - have main as a 
loop so that it looped around after each test sequence was finished - 
will on remote systems improve the performance somewhat.  But what ever.

Once all this are addressed, post the update _along_ with the system 
tested on, and then it can be committed.

Andrew

Re: [RFA] Some testcases for long long bitfields

[Paul Hilfinger]

Andrew,

Thanks for the comments.  I'll address them presently.  If you have
free time on your hands (:->) you might want to turn your gimlet eye
on bitfields.exp, from which I stole most of this.

Paul Hilfinger

Re: [RFA] Some testcases for long long bitfields

[Paul Hilfinger]

I believe that the following revision of the bitfields2 test (for
bitfields in long long fields) addresses Andrew's comments.  I have
tested it on i686 GNU/Linux with GCC 3.2.3.  OK?

Some specifics:

> - Why?  Or is this really a known bug?
> > +    if $no_signed then {
> > +	setup_xfail "*-*-*"
> > +    }
> > +    set test "set long long signed bitfield negative"
> > +    gdb_test_multiple "print flags.s2 = -1" $test {
> > +	-re "warning: Value does not fit.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> > +	    fail "$test"
> > +	    gdb_suppress_tests
> > +	}
> > +	-re "= -1.*$gdb_prompt $" {
> > +	    pass "$test"
> > +	}
> > +    }

Well, this is what bitfields does, which is what I used as a model. On 
reflection, however, it seems to me that XFAIL is inappropriate, since if
there is a failure here, it is most likely due to the fact the compiler
being used does not support signed bitfields---that is, a compiler for 
which !defined(__STDC__) && !defined(__cplusplus) and which interprets
bitfields as unsigned.  So it seems that the tests ought to be considered
unsupported instead, and I have made that change.  But that merely changes
your question to "ARE there any compilers we need worry about with this
property". I have no idea, but other testcases seem to be written as if
there are.

> - delete this:
> +if [istarget "mips-idt-*"] then {
> +    # Restart because IDT/SIM runs out of file descriptors.
> +    gdb_exit
> +    gdb_start
> +    gdb_reinitialize_dir $srcdir/$subdir
> +    gdb_load ${binfile}
> +}

Done.  I observe, by the way, that this same code appears in several
existing tests: bitfields, funcargs, opaque, scope.

> perhaps think about what I did for the sig*.exp tests - have main as a 
> loop so that it looped around after each test sequence was finished - 
> will on remote systems improve the performance somewhat.  But what ever.

OK. I have made a variant of this change that does not use GDB to modify the
control flow of the program. 

Paul Hilfinger



ChangeLog:

2004-11-26  Paul N. Hilfinger  <Hilfinger@gnat.com>

	* gdb.base/bitfields2.c: New file.
	* gdb.base/bitfields2.exp: New test.

Index: current-public.120/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/bitfields2.exp
--- current-public.120/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/bitfields2.exp Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:10:02 -0800 hilfingr ()
+++ current-public.120(w)/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/bitfields2.exp Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:41:57 -0800 hilfingr (GdbPub/r/c/13_bitfields2  644)
@@ -0,0 +1,300 @@
+# Copyright 1992, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+
+# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
+# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
+# the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+# (at your option) any later version.
+# 
+# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
+# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
+# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
+# GNU General Public License for more details.
+# 
+# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
+# along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
+# Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.  
+
+# This file was adapted from bitfields.exp by Paul Hilfinger 
+# (Hilfinger@gnat.com)
+
+#
+# Tests for bit-fields that do not fit in type (unsigned) int, but do fit 
+# in type (unsigned) long long.  We perform essentially the same tests as
+# in bitfields.c, which considers only bit-fields that are <= 9 bits long.
+#
+
+if $tracelevel then {
+	strace $tracelevel
+}
+
+set prms_id 0
+set bug_id 0
+
+set testfile "bitfields2"
+set srcfile ${testfile}.c
+set binfile ${objdir}/${subdir}/${testfile}
+if  { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable {debug}] != "" } {
+    gdb_suppress_entire_file "Testcase compile failed, so all tests in this file will automatically fail."
+}
+
+set has_signed_bitfields 1
+
+#
+# Continue to expected breakpoint at FUNCTION.  Append TAG to make pass/fail 
+# messages (to make them unique).  Suppress tests on failure.
+#
+proc continue_test { function tag } {
+    global decimal
+    global srcfile
+
+    if [gdb_test "cont" "Break.*$function \\(\\) at .*$srcfile:$decimal.*" "continuing to $function $tag"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+}
+
+#
+# Start next test by running to tester and then to FUNCTION.   Suppresses
+# tests on failure.
+#
+proc start_test { function } {
+    delete_breakpoints
+    if [gdb_test "break tester" "" "break tester prior to $function"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+    continue_test "tester" "prior to $function"
+    if ![gdb_breakpoint $function] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+    continue_test $function "#0"
+}
+    
+
+#
+# Test bitfield locating and uniqueness.
+# For each member, set that member to 1 and verify that the member (and only
+# that member) is 1, then reset it back to 0.
+#
+
+proc bitfield_uniqueness {} {
+    global decimal
+    global hex
+    global gdb_prompt
+    global srcfile
+
+    start_test break1
+	
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" ".*u1 = 0, u2 = 0, u3 = 0, s1 = 1, s2 = 0, s3 = 0.*" "bitfield uniqueness; flags.s1 = 1"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests;
+    }
+    continue_test break1 "#1"
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" ".*u1 = 1, u2 = 0, u3 = 0, s1 = 0, s2 = 0, s3 = 0.*" "bitfield uniqueness; flags.u1 = 1"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests;
+    }
+    continue_test break1 "#2"
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" ".*u1 = 0, u2 = 0, u3 = 0, s1 = 0, s2 = 1, s3 = 0.*" "bitfield uniqueness; flags.s2 = 1"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests;
+    }
+    continue_test break1 "#3"
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" ".*u1 = 0, u2 = 1, u3 = 0, s1 = 0, s2 = 0, s3 = 0.*" "bitfield uniqueness; flags.u2 = 1"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests;
+    }
+    continue_test break1 "#4"
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" ".*u1 = 0, u2 = 0, u3 = 0, s1 = 0, s2 = 0, s3 = 1.*" "bitfield uniqueness; flags.s3 = 1"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests;
+    }
+    continue_test break1 "#5"
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" ".*u1 = 0, u2 = 0, u3 = 1, s1 = 0, s2 = 0, s3 = 0.*" "bitfield uniqueness; flags.u3 = 1"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+    gdb_stop_suppressing_tests;
+}
+
+
+#
+# Test bitfield containment.
+# Fill alternating fields with all 1's and verify that none of the bits
+# "bleed over" to the other fields.
+#
+
+proc bitfield_containment {} {
+    global decimal
+    global hex
+    global gdb_prompt
+    global srcfile
+
+    start_test break2
+
+    # If program is compiled with Sun CC, signed fields print out as their
+    # actual sizes; if compiled with gcc, they print out as 0xffffffff.
+    if [gdb_test "print/x flags" "= {u1 = 0x7fff, u2 = 0x0, u3 = 0xffff, s1 = 0x0, s2 = 0x(1ffffffff|f*), s3 = 0x0}" "bitfield containment; flags.u1, flags.u3, and flags.s3 to all 1s"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+
+    continue_test break2 "#1"
+
+    if [gdb_test "print/x flags" "= {u1 = 0x0, u2 = 0x1ffffffff, u3 = 0x0, s1 = 0x(7fff|f*), s2 = 0x0, s3 = 0xf*}" "bitfield containment; flags.u2, flags.s1, flags.s2 to all 1s"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+    gdb_stop_suppressing_tests;
+}
+
+# Test unsigned bitfields for unsignedness and range.
+# Fill the unsigned fields with the maximum positive value and verify that
+# the values are printed correctly.
+
+proc bitfield_unsignedness {} {
+    global decimal
+    global hex
+    global gdb_prompt
+    global srcfile
+
+    start_test break3
+
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" ".*u1 = 32767, u2 = 8589934591, u3 = 65535, s1 = 0, s2 = 0, s3 = 0.*" "maximum unsigned bitfield values"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+    gdb_stop_suppressing_tests;
+}
+
+#
+# Test signed bitfields for signedness and range.
+# Fill the signed fields with the maximum positive value, then the maximally
+# negative value, then -1, and verify in each case that the values are
+# printed correctly.
+#
+
+proc bitfield_signedness {} {
+    global decimal
+    global hex
+    global gdb_prompt
+    global srcfile
+    global has_signed_bitfields
+
+    start_test break4
+
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" "= {.*u1 = 0, u2 = 0, u3 = 0, s1 = 16383, s2 = 4294967295, s3 = 32767.*}" "maximum signed bitfield values"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+
+    continue_test break4 "#1"
+
+    # Determine if the target has signed bitfields so we can skip
+    # the signed bitfield tests if it doesn't.
+    set test "determining signed-ness of bitfields"
+    set has_signed_bitfields 0
+    gdb_test_multiple "print i" $test {
+	-re ".* = -32768.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    set has_signed_bitfields 1
+	    pass "determining signed-ness of bitfields"
+	}
+	-re ".* = 32768.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    pass "determining signed-ness of bitfields"
+	}
+	-re ".*$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    fail "determining signed-ness of bitfields"
+	    gdb_suppress_tests
+	}
+    }
+
+    set test "most negative signed bitfield values"
+    if $has_signed_bitfields then {
+        if [gdb_test "print flags" "u1 = 0, u2 = 0, u3 = 0, s1 = -16384, s2 = -4294967296, s3 = -32768.*" $test ] {
+            gdb_suppress_tests
+        }
+    } else {
+	unsupported $test
+    }
+
+    continue_test break4 "#2"
+
+    set test "signed bitfields containing -1"
+    if $has_signed_bitfields then {
+	if [gdb_test "print flags" "u1 = 0, u2 = 0, u3 = 0, s1 = -1, s2 = -1, s3 = -1.*" $test ] {
+	    gdb_suppress_tests
+	}
+    } else {
+	unsupported $test
+    }
+
+    gdb_stop_suppressing_tests;
+}
+
+
+# Test setting of long long bit fields from within GDB.
+
+proc bitfield_set {} {
+    global decimal
+    global hex
+    global gdb_prompt
+    global srcfile
+    global has_signed_bitfields
+
+    start_test break5
+
+    set big_set_failed 0
+    set test "set long long unsigned bitfield"
+    gdb_test_multiple "print flags.u2 = 0x100000000" $test {
+	-re "warning: Value does not fit.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    fail "$test"
+	    gdb_suppress_tests
+	}
+	-re "= 4294967296.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    pass "$test"
+	}
+    }
+
+    set test "set long long signed bitfield positive"
+    gdb_test_multiple "print flags.s2 = 0x80000000" $test {
+	-re "warning: Value does not fit.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    fail "$test"
+	    gdb_suppress_tests
+	}
+	-re "= 2147483648.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    pass "$test"
+	}
+    }
+
+    if [gdb_test "print flags" "u1 = 0, u2 = 4294967296, u3 = 0, s1 = 0, s2 = 2147483648, s3 = 0.*" "long long bitfield values after set"] {
+	gdb_suppress_tests
+    }
+
+    set test "set long long signed bitfield negative"
+    if $has_signed_bitfields then {
+	gdb_test_multiple "print flags.s2 = -1" $test {
+	    -re "warning: Value does not fit.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+		fail "$test"
+		gdb_suppress_tests
+	    }
+	    -re "= -1.*$gdb_prompt $" {
+		pass "$test"
+	    }
+	}
+    } else {
+	unsupported $test
+    }
+
+    set test  "long long bitfield values after set negative"
+    if $has_signed_bitfields then {
+	if [gdb_test "print flags" "u1 = 0, u2 = 4294967296, u3 = 0, s1 = 0, s2 = -1, s3 = 0.*" $test] {
+	    gdb_suppress_tests
+	}
+    } else {
+	unsupported $test
+    }
+
+    gdb_stop_suppressing_tests;
+}
+
+gdb_start
+gdb_reinitialize_dir $srcdir/$subdir
+gdb_load ${binfile}
+
+send_gdb "set print sevenbit-strings\n" ; gdb_expect -re "$gdb_prompt $"
+runto_main
+
+bitfield_uniqueness
+bitfield_containment
+bitfield_unsignedness
+bitfield_signedness
+bitfield_set
+
Index: current-public.120/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/bitfields2.c
--- current-public.120/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/bitfields2.c Fri, 26 Nov 2004 14:10:02 -0800 hilfingr ()
+++ current-public.120(w)/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/bitfields2.c Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:41:57 -0800 hilfingr (GdbPub/r/c/14_bitfields2  644)
@@ -0,0 +1,172 @@
+/* Test program to test bit field operations on bit fields of large
+   integer types.  */
+
+/* This file is expected to fail to compile if the type long long int
+   is not supported, but in that case it is irrelevant.  */
+
+#include <stdlib.h>
+#include <string.h>
+
+#if !defined(__STDC__) && !defined(__cplusplus)
+#define signed  /**/
+#endif
+
+struct fields
+{
+  unsigned long long u1 : 15;
+  unsigned long long u2 : 33;
+  unsigned long long u3 : 16;
+  signed long long   s1 : 15;
+  signed long long   s2 : 33;
+  signed long long   s3 : 16;
+} flags;
+
+void break1 ()
+{
+}
+
+void break2 ()
+{
+}
+
+void break3 ()
+{
+}
+
+void break4 ()
+{
+}
+
+void break5 ()
+{
+}
+
+void break6 ()
+{
+}
+
+void break7 ()
+{
+}
+
+void break8 ()
+{
+}
+
+void break9 ()
+{
+}
+
+void break10 ()
+{
+}
+
+/* This is used by bitfields.exp to determine if the target understands
+   signed bitfields.  */
+int i;
+
+void tester ()
+{
+  memset ((char *) &flags, 0, sizeof (flags));
+
+  /* For each member, set that member to 1, allow gdb to verify that the
+     member (and only that member) is 1, and then reset it back to 0. */
+  flags.s1 = 1;
+  break1 ();
+  flags.s1 = 0;
+
+  flags.u1 = 1;
+  break1 ();
+  flags.u1 = 0;
+
+  flags.s2  = 1;
+  break1 ();
+  flags.s2 = 0;
+
+  flags.u2 = 1;
+  break1 ();
+  flags.u2 = 0;
+
+  flags.s3  = 1;
+  break1 ();
+  flags.s3 = 0;
+
+  flags.u3 = 1;
+  break1 ();
+  flags.u3 = 0;
+
+  /* Fill alternating fields with all 1's and verify that none of the bits
+     "bleed over" to the other fields. */
+
+  flags.u1 = 0x7FFF;
+  flags.u3 = 0xFFFF;
+  flags.s2 = -1LL;
+  break2 ();
+  flags.u1 = 0;
+  flags.u3 = 0;
+  flags.s2 = 0;
+
+  flags.u2 = 0x1FFFFFFFFLL;
+  flags.s1 = -1;
+  flags.s3 = -1;
+  break2 ();
+
+  flags.u2 = 0;
+  flags.s1 = 0;
+  flags.s3 = 0;
+
+  /* Fill the unsigned fields with the maximum positive value and verify
+     that the values are printed correctly. */
+
+  flags.u1 = 0x7FFF;
+  flags.u2 = 0x1FFFFFFFFLL;
+  flags.u3 = 0xFFFF;
+  break3 ();
+  flags.u1 = 0;
+  flags.u2 = 0;
+  flags.u3 = 0;
+
+  /* Fill the signed fields with the maximum positive value, then the maximally
+     negative value, then -1, and verify in each case that the values are
+     printed correctly. */
+
+  /* Maximum positive values */
+  flags.s1 = 0x3FFF;
+  flags.s2 = 0xFFFFFFFFLL;
+  flags.s3 = 0x7FFF;
+  break4 ();
+
+  /* Maximally negative values */
+  flags.s1 = -0x4000;
+  flags.s2 = -0x100000000LL;
+  flags.s3 = -0x8000;
+
+  /* Extract bitfield value so that bitfield.exp can check if the target
+     understands signed bitfields.  */
+  i = flags.s3;
+  break4 ();
+
+  /* -1 */
+  flags.s1 = -1;
+  flags.s2 = -1;
+  flags.s3 = -1;
+  break4 ();
+
+  flags.s1 = 0;
+  flags.s2 = 0;
+  flags.s3 = 0;
+
+  break5 ();
+}
+
+int main () 
+{
+  int i;
+#ifdef usestubs
+  set_debug_traps();
+  breakpoint();
+#endif
+  for (i = 0; i < 5; i += 1)
+    tester ();
+  return 0;
+}

Re: [RFA] Some testcases for long long bitfields

[Andrew Cagney]

Paul Hilfinger wrote:
> I believe that the following revision of the bitfields2 test (for
> bitfields in long long fields) addresses Andrew's comments.  I have
> tested it on i686 GNU/Linux with GCC 3.2.3.  OK?
> 
> Some specifics:
> 
> 
>>- Why?  Or is this really a known bug?
>>
>>>+    if $no_signed then {
>>>+	setup_xfail "*-*-*"
>>>+    }
>>>+    set test "set long long signed bitfield negative"
>>>+    gdb_test_multiple "print flags.s2 = -1" $test {
>>>+	-re "warning: Value does not fit.*$gdb_prompt $" {
>>>+	    fail "$test"
>>>+	    gdb_suppress_tests
>>>+	}
>>>+	-re "= -1.*$gdb_prompt $" {
>>>+	    pass "$test"
>>>+	}
>>>+    } 
> 
> 
> Well, this is what bitfields does, which is what I used as a model. On 
> reflection, however, it seems to me that XFAIL is inappropriate, since if
> there is a failure here, it is most likely due to the fact the compiler
> being used does not support signed bitfields---that is, a compiler for 
> which !defined(__STDC__) && !defined(__cplusplus) and which interprets
> bitfields as unsigned.  So it seems that the tests ought to be considered
> unsupported instead, and I have made that change.  But that merely changes
> your question to "ARE there any compilers we need worry about with this
> property". I have no idea, but other testcases seem to be written as if
> there are.

True, ok.

>>- delete this:
>>+if [istarget "mips-idt-*"] then {
>>+    # Restart because IDT/SIM runs out of file descriptors.
>>+    gdb_exit
>>+    gdb_start
>>+    gdb_reinitialize_dir $srcdir/$subdir
>>+    gdb_load ${binfile}
>>+}
> 
> 
> Done.  I observe, by the way, that this same code appears in several
> existing tests: bitfields, funcargs, opaque, scope.
> 
> 
>>perhaps think about what I did for the sig*.exp tests - have main as a 
>>loop so that it looped around after each test sequence was finished - 
>>will on remote systems improve the performance somewhat.  But what ever.
> 
> 
> OK. I have made a variant of this change that does not use GDB to modify the
> control flow of the program. 

Thanks! Ok for commit.

Andrew

Re: [RFA] Some testcases for long long bitfields

[Paul Hilfinger]

> Thanks! Ok for commit.

Thanks yourself.  Committed.

Paul Hilfinger