From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20897 invoked by alias); 26 Nov 2004 22:49:51 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 20054 invoked from network); 26 Nov 2004 22:49:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 26 Nov 2004 22:49:17 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2FDC9649; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:49:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 10080-01-3; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:49:12 -0500 (EST) Received: by nile.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1345) id 5BFCF9648; Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:49:12 -0500 (EST) From: Paul Hilfinger To: cagney@gnu.org Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <4193C69E.9050403@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Thu, 11 Nov 2004 15:07:58 -0500) Subject: Re: [RFA] Some testcases for long long bitfields References: <20041101113842.511BDF2B98@nile.gnat.com> <4193C69E.9050403@gnu.org> Message-Id: <20041126224912.5BFCF9648@nile.gnat.com> Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 22:49:00 -0000 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at nile.gnat.com X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg00479.txt.bz2 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 * 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 +#include + +#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; +}