From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id xXkiMWbntF8ZHgAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 04:20:38 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id B98B71F08B; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 04:20:38 -0500 (EST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE9091E58E for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 04:20:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF210385800A; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:20:36 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org CF210385800A DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1605691236; bh=0F5ScuXpLO6BKBSQsKVp7Y/Z1lyM4oACh28Wg75Oug4=; h=Date:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To: From; b=okPNLMO/xoJMsG8ynkbqlbMxexxbySRgYi7f0KHsKqV96CpzVK+7oRpSFoZPJXA08 2bie0PWgPxAxqGF0XUbhCZF1zMNKThPxTi0QgPGEICBAmnFkUtO8WwcCvdvis4ABiP cySR/BWb+/N0ZToIi2WhGH9AtogE1T/m8ko97lEs= Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [63.128.21.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C757E3861847 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:20:16 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org C757E3861847 Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-98-iI1ihnZfOkyBYVFuaXwLCQ-1; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 04:20:15 -0500 X-MC-Unique: iI1ihnZfOkyBYVFuaXwLCQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19891100854F; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:20:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blade.nx (ovpn-115-45.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.115.45]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C692460C05; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:20:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blade.nx (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F0552816CD2E; Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:20:12 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2020 09:20:12 +0000 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey , Andreas Schwab Subject: [PING][PATCH v2] Fix gdb.dwarf2/clztest.exp with Clang Message-ID: <20201118092012.GA5258@blade.nx> References: <87361rsdym.fsf@tromey.com> <1604489201-21004-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1604489201-21004-1-git-send-email-gbenson@redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.12 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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: , From: Gary Benson via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Gary Benson Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" Ping. gdb-patches wrote: > Hi Tom, Andreas, > > Tom Tromey wrote: > > >> Shouldn't .eh_frame always be read-only? > > > > Gary> I don't know. > > > > For a test in particular I think the question is whether the change > > can somehow negatively affect the test itself; and maybe secondarily > > whether some plausible and/or planned future change would break the > > test. > > > > If not then it seems fine to move forward. > > GCC doesn't complain about making that section read-only, so I've > updated the test to make the section read-only always. > > > Generally I think we'd be better off eliminating these assembly > > tests in favor of something like the test suite's DWARF assembler, > > though I didn't look to see whether this one would qualify. > > Sure, but I'm not volunteering to do this one today! ;) > > I've inlined an updated patch below. As before I checked it on > Fedora 32 x86_64, with GCC and Clang. Is it ok for me to commit? > > Thanks, > Gary > > --- > Clang fails to compile gdb.dwarf2/clztest.S, with the following error: > > gdb compile failed, /gdbtest/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/clztest.S:181:2: > error: changed section flags for .eh_frame, expected: 0x2 > > This commit fixes the testcase by defining .eh_frame's flags > as Clang expects, as "a" rather than as "aw", thus making the > section read-only. > > gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog: > > * gdb.dwarf2/clztest.S (.eh_frame): Make read-only. > --- > gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog | 4 ++++ > gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/clztest.S | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/clztest.S b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/clztest.S > index a904fee..5e6cdae 100644 > --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/clztest.S > +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/clztest.S > @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ _start: > .LEFDE4: > #NO_APP > #APP > - .section .eh_frame,"aw",@progbits > + .section .eh_frame,"a",@progbits > .Lframe1: > .long .LECIE1-.LSCIE1 # Length of Common Information Entry > .LSCIE1: > -- > 1.8.3.1 > -- Gary Benson - he / him / his Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat