From: Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: [committed][gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.ada/access_tagged_param.exp for aarch64
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2022 11:30:01 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220907092959.GA30111@delia> (raw)
Hi,
On aarch64-linux, I run into:
...
Breakpoint 2, pck.inspect (obj=0x430eb0 \
<system.pool_global.global_pool_object>, <objL>=0) at pck.adb:17^M
17 procedure Inspect (Obj: access Top_T'Class) is^M
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.ada/access_tagged_param.exp: continue
...
while on x86_64-linux, I see:
...
Breakpoint 2, pck.inspect (obj=0x62b2a0, <objL>=2) at pck.adb:19^M
19 null;^M
(gdb) PASS: gdb.ada/access_tagged_param.exp: continue
...
Note the different line numbers, 17 vs 19.
The difference comes from the gdbarch_skip_prologue implementation.
The amd64_skip_prologue implementation doesn't use gcc line numbers, and falls
back to the architecture-specific prologue analyzer, which correctly skips
past the prologue, to address 0x4022f7:
...
00000000004022ec <pck__inspect>:
4022ec: 55 push %rbp
4022ed: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
4022f0: 48 89 7d f8 mov %rdi,-0x8(%rbp)
4022f4: 89 75 f4 mov %esi,-0xc(%rbp)
4022f7: 90 nop
4022f8: 90 nop
4022f9: 5d pop %rbp
4022fa: c3 ret
...
The aarch64_skip_prologue implementation does use gcc line numbers, which are:
...
File name Line number Starting address View Stmt
pck.adb 17 0x402580 x
pck.adb 17 0x402580 1 x
pck.adb 19 0x40258c x
pck.adb 20 0x402590 x
...
and which are represented like this internally in gdb:
...
INDEX LINE ADDRESS IS-STMT PROLOGUE-END
0 17 0x0000000000402580 Y
1 17 0x0000000000402580 Y
2 19 0x000000000040258c Y
3 20 0x0000000000402590 Y
4 END 0x00000000004025a0 Y
...
The second entry is interpreted as end-of-prologue, so 0x402580 is used, while
the actual end of the prologue is at 0x40258c:
...
0000000000402580 <pck__inspect>:
402580: d10043ff sub sp, sp, #0x10
402584: f90007e0 str x0, [sp, #8]
402588: b90007e1 str w1, [sp, #4]
40258c: d503201f nop
402590: d503201f nop
402594: 910043ff add sp, sp, #0x10
402598: d65f03c0 ret
40259c: d503201f nop
...
Note that the architecture-specific prologue analyzer would have gotten this
right:
...
(gdb) p /x aarch64_analyze_prologue (gdbarch, pc, pc + 128, 0)
$2 = 0x40258c
...
Fix the FAIL by making the test-case more robust against problems in prologue
skipping, by setting the breakpoint on line 19 instead.
Likewise in a few similar test-cases.
Tested on x86_64-linux and aarch64-linux.
Committed to trunk.
Thanks,
- Tom
[gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.ada/access_tagged_param.exp for aarch64
---
gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/access_tagged_param.exp | 2 +-
gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp | 2 +-
gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/ref_param.exp | 2 +-
3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/access_tagged_param.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/access_tagged_param.exp
index 2b8e8ef172f..931c7fb12a9 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/access_tagged_param.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/access_tagged_param.exp
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ if ![runto "foo"] then {
return
}
-gdb_breakpoint "pck.inspect"
+gdb_breakpoint "pck.adb:19"
# Continue until we reach the breakpoint, and verify that we can print
# the value of all the parameters.
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp
index 0972e02a636..3a4a84a22ce 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/ptype_tagged_param.exp
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ set has_runtime_debug_info [gnat_runtime_has_debug_info]
clean_restart ${testfile}
-if ![runto "position_x" ] then {
+if ![runto "pck.adb:20" ] then {
return -1
}
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/ref_param.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/ref_param.exp
index cbe0c065d34..56347932564 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/ref_param.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/ref_param.exp
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ if {[gdb_compile_ada "${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable [list debug ]] != "" }
clean_restart ${testfile}
-if ![runto call_me] then {
+if ![runto pck.adb:20] then {
perror "Couldn't run ${testfile}"
return
}
next reply other threads:[~2022-09-07 9:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-09-07 9:30 Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches [this message]
2022-09-07 9:33 ` Luis Machado via Gdb-patches
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220907092959.GA30111@delia \
--to=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=tdevries@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox