[RFA/ada] fix bug in ada-valprint.c:print_optional_low_bound()

[RFA/ada] fix bug in ada-valprint.c:print_optional_low_bound()

[Joel Brobecker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2336 bytes --]

Hello,

This is a regression I noticed after introducing "set print array-indexes".
Consider the code submitted in the gdb.ada/arrayidx testcase:

        http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2005-10/msg00046.html

You have an enumerated type declared, and then an array type declared
using that enumerated type as its index:

        type Index is (One, Two, Three);
        type RTable is array (Index range Two .. Three) of Integer;

As you see, the array type does not use the entire enumerated type
range as its index, but only a subrange of it. So when printing an
array of this type, such as:

        R_Two_Three : RTable := (2, 3);

The debugger should notice that the lower bound of the array is
not the first element of the enumerated type, and therefore should
explicitly print the index of the first array element, like this:

        (gdb) print r_two_three
        $1 = (two => 2, 3)

However, we currently get this:

        (gdb) print r_two_three
        $1 = (two => 2, 3)

What happens is that GDB sees in print_optional_low_bound() that
the index type is a TYPE_CODE_RANGE, failing to see that underneath
there is an enumerated type. So it therefore compares the value of
the low bound against 1, which it should compare it against the value
of the first enumeration in the enumerated type.

The underlying value of an enumerated type is typically zero, so
"one" is zero, and "two" is 1.

Just to make it easier to see what's after the patch, here is a copy
of the switch seen in the patch:

        switch (TYPE_CODE (index_type))
          {
          case TYPE_CODE_ENUM:
            if (low_bound == TYPE_FIELD_BITPOS (index_type, 0))
              return 0;
            break;
          case TYPE_CODE_UNDEF:
            index_type = builtin_type_long;
            /* FALL THROUGH */
          default:
            if (low_bound == 1)
              return 0;
            break;
          }

The patch fixes this problem. It's not sufficient to fix the problem,
due to another problem I eluded to when submitting gdb.ada/arrayidx.exp.
But this patch will be needed.

2005-10-05  Joel Brobecker  <brobecker@adacore.com>

        * ada-valprint.c (print_optional_low_bound): Handle properly
        cases where the array index type is a TYPE_CODE_RANGE.

Tested on x86-linux. No regression.

Thanks,
-- 
Joel

[-- Attachment #2: ada-valprint.c.diff --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 887 bytes --]

Index: ada-valprint.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/ada-valprint.c,v
retrieving revision 1.24
diff -u -p -r1.24 ada-valprint.c
--- ada-valprint.c	3 Oct 2005 21:21:20 -0000	1.24
+++ ada-valprint.c	5 Oct 2005 23:26:09 -0000
@@ -94,6 +94,16 @@ print_optional_low_bound (struct ui_file
 
   index_type = TYPE_INDEX_TYPE (type);
 
+  if (TYPE_CODE (index_type) == TYPE_CODE_RANGE)
+    {
+      /* We need to know what the base type is, in order to do the
+         appropriate check below.  Otherwise, if this is a subrange
+         of an enumerated type, where the underlying value of the
+         first element is typically 0, we might test the low bound
+         against the wrong value.  */
+      index_type = TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (index_type);
+    }
+
   switch (TYPE_CODE (index_type))
     {
     case TYPE_CODE_ENUM:

Re: [RFA/ada] fix bug in ada-valprint.c:print_optional_low_bound()

[Joel Brobecker]

> However, we currently get this:
> 
>         (gdb) print r_two_three
>         $1 = (two => 2, 3)

AARRGH. Copy/paste error. I should have written:

> However, we currently get this:
> 
>         (gdb) print r_two_three
>         $1 = (2, 3)

(no explicit index in the array value)

-- 
Joel

Re: [RFA/ada] fix bug in ada-valprint.c:print_optional_low_bound()

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 04:28:15PM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> 2005-10-05  Joel Brobecker  <brobecker@adacore.com>
> 
>         * ada-valprint.c (print_optional_low_bound): Handle properly
>         cases where the array index type is a TYPE_CODE_RANGE.

Sure, this is OK.


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC

Re: [RFA/ada] fix bug in ada-valprint.c:print_optional_low_bound()

[Joel Brobecker]

> > 2005-10-05  Joel Brobecker  <brobecker@adacore.com>
> > 
> >         * ada-valprint.c (print_optional_low_bound): Handle properly
> >         cases where the array index type is a TYPE_CODE_RANGE.
> 
> Sure, this is OK.

Thanks, checked in as well.

-- 
Joel