From: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
To: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] gdb.base/nodebug.exp: Add long double testing
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2026 14:59:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <215cfb6b-c439-4958-aea2-5787bf2da2d6@palves.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87zezqd4cf.fsf@redhat.com>
On 2026-07-16 22:14, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net> writes:
...
> Not that it really matters, but the ordering seems a bit weird, the
> existing functions are all:
>
> X
> X_noproto
> Y
> Y_noproto
> etc...
>
> but you broke this pattern.
Whoops, that was not intentional. I think I misread the pattern earlier. I reordered it now:
$ grep "^mult" testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.c
multf (float v1, float v2)
multf_noproto (v1, v2)
mult (double v1, double v2)
mult_noproto (v1, v2)
mult_long_double (long double v1, long double v2)
mult_long_double_noproto (v1, v2)
Thanks for spotting this.
> I only mention it because I have some
> actual worthwhile points to raise below...
>
>> +
>> uint8_t
>> add8 (uint8_t v1, uint8_t v2)
>> {
>> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.exp
>> index e4138a801da..1a16e86ed2c 100644
>> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.exp
>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.exp
>> @@ -78,6 +78,12 @@ proc test_call_promotion {} {
>> gdb_test "p ((double (*) ()) mult_noproto)(2.0f, 3.0f)" " = 6"
>> gdb_test "p ((double (*) ()) mult_noproto)(2.0, 3.0)" " = 6"
>>
>> + # Same, but for long double.
>> + gdb_test "p (long double) mult_long_double(2.0L, 3.0L)" " = 6"
>> + gdb_test "p ((long double (*) (long double, long double)) mult_long_double)(2.0L, 3.0L)" " = 6"
>> + gdb_test "p ((long double (*) (long double, long double)) mult_long_double)(2, 3)" " = 6"
>> + gdb_test "p ((long double (*) ()) mult_long_double_noproto)(2.0L, 3.0L)" " = 6"
>
> I noticed that the double test also includes a case which tests float to
> double promotion, but that case is skipped here. Wouldn't it be a good
> idea to include both float to long double and double to long double
> tests here too?
That's because the double test is exercising the standard C default argument
promotion rules, for floating point, which says that for non-prototyped functions,
float is promoted to double.
So for this float function:
float
multf_noproto (v1, v2)
float v1, v2;
{
return v1 * v2;
}
called like so:
multif_noproto (1.0f, 2.0f);
this happens:
1. Caller promotes 1.0f/2.0f to double, passes the double values.
2. Callee receives doubles.
3. Callee's prologue converts to float, because the declared param type is float.
4. Body uses v1/v2 as float.
================================
And for the double case:
double
mult_noproto (v1, v2)
double v1, v2;
{
return v1 * v2;
}
called like so:
multi_noproto (1.0f, 2.0f);
this happens:
1. Caller promotes 1.0f/2.0f to double, passes the double values.
2. Callee receives a double.
3. Body uses v1/v2 as double.
================================
The long double case is different. The C default promotion is float->double, NOT float->long double.
long double
mult_long_double_noproto (v1, v2)
long double v1, v2;
{
return v1 * v2;
}
mult_long_double_noproto (1.0f, 2.0f);
so this happens:
1. Caller promotes 1.0f/2.0f to double, passes the double values.
2. Callee receives doubles.
3. Body uses v1/v2 as long double. (with no conversion! undefined behavior.)
On ABIs where double and long double are distinct types/sizes, the body sees bogus/corrupt values.
===============================
For the prototyped case, the calls where we pass int, like:
p ((float (*) (float, float)) multf)(2, 3)
cover coercion from int to declared type, which is basically testing that gdb does a cast there.
testing float -> double, etc. for the prototyped cases would not add extra coverage, as it'd just
be testing that gdb knows how to cast from float -> double.
I've added some comments to the test to try to make it a little clearer. I also corrected a couple
references to "coercion" to "promotion" to be more accurate. The existing comments are using the terms
interchangeably, but that's not 100% correct.
Let me know what you think.
From 3f7db94982bb02473e89199a93dde2d27e06014a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2026 00:34:43 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] gdb.base/nodebug.exp: Add long double testing
gdb.base/nodebug.exp is missing testing calling long double functions.
This commit adds such tests.
With a GDB that doesn't know that "long double" is 64-bit on
x86_64-pc-windows-msvc, we get:
FAIL: gdb.base/nodebug.exp: p (long double) mult_long_double(2.0L, 3.0L)
FAIL: gdb.base/nodebug.exp: p ((long double (*) (long double, long double)) mult_long_double)(2.0L, 3.0L)
FAIL: gdb.base/nodebug.exp: p ((long double (*) (long double, long double)) mult_long_double)(2, 3)
FAIL: gdb.base/nodebug.exp: p ((long double (*) ()) mult_long_double_noproto)(2.0L, 3.0L)
Passes cleanly on:
- x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
- x86_64-w64-mingw32
- x86_64-pc-windows-msvc, with the "long double" fix
Change-Id: If9ee749187e1d30fedcba17ae12634f3bd90de2f
---
gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.c | 13 +++++++++++++
gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.exp | 21 ++++++++++++++++-----
2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.c b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.c
index c7bc93991b8..00e854844bf 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.c
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.c
@@ -79,6 +79,19 @@ mult_noproto (v1, v2)
return v1 * v2;
}
+long double
+mult_long_double (long double v1, long double v2)
+{
+ return v1 * v2;
+}
+
+long double
+mult_long_double_noproto (v1, v2)
+ long double v1, v2;
+{
+ return v1 * v2;
+}
+
uint8_t
add8 (uint8_t v1, uint8_t v2)
{
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.exp
index e4138a801da..7a5ab273bde 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/nodebug.exp
@@ -51,8 +51,8 @@ proc nodebug_runto {func} {
}
# Test calling no-debug functions involving argument types that may
-# require coercion/promotion, both prototyped and unprototyped, both
-# return-type-cast style, and function-pointer-cast styles.
+# require coercion or promotion, both prototyped and unprototyped,
+# both return-type-cast style, and function-pointer-cast styles.
proc test_call_promotion {} {
if {[target_info exists gdb,cannot_call_functions]} {
return
@@ -60,14 +60,15 @@ proc test_call_promotion {} {
# Call prototyped function with float parameters via both
# return-type cast and function-pointer cast. This checks that
- # GDB doesn't do float->double coercion.
+ # GDB doesn't do float->double promotion.
gdb_test "p (float) multf(2.0f, 3.0f)" " = 6"
- gdb_test "p ((float (*) (float, float)) multf)(2, 3)" " = 6"
gdb_test "p ((float (*) (float, float)) multf)(2.0f, 3.0f)" " = 6"
+ # This tests int->float coercion.
+ gdb_test "p ((float (*) (float, float)) multf)(2, 3)" " = 6"
# Call unprototyped function with float parameters via
# function-pointer cast, only. return-type cast assumes
- # protototyped. Check that GDB does float->double coercion.
+ # prototyped. Check that GDB does float->double promotion.
gdb_test "p ((float (*) ()) multf_noproto)(2.0f, 3.0f)" " = 6"
gdb_test "p ((float (*) ()) multf_noproto)(2.0, 3.0)" " = 6"
@@ -78,6 +79,16 @@ proc test_call_promotion {} {
gdb_test "p ((double (*) ()) mult_noproto)(2.0f, 3.0f)" " = 6"
gdb_test "p ((double (*) ()) mult_noproto)(2.0, 3.0)" " = 6"
+ # Same, but for long double.
+ gdb_test "p (long double) mult_long_double(2.0L, 3.0L)" " = 6"
+ gdb_test "p ((long double (*) (long double, long double)) mult_long_double)(2.0L, 3.0L)" " = 6"
+ gdb_test "p ((long double (*) (long double, long double)) mult_long_double)(2, 3)" " = 6"
+ # For unprototyped calls, the standard C default argument
+ # promotion (for floating point) applies only to float and
+ # promotes to double, so test only with the expected type, using
+ # L-suffixed literals to pass long doubles.
+ gdb_test "p ((long double (*) ()) mult_long_double_noproto)(2.0L, 3.0L)" " = 6"
+
# Check that GDB promotes char->int correctly.
gdb_test "p /d (uint8) add8((uint8) 2, (uint8) 3)" " = 5"
gdb_test "p /d ((uint8 (*) (uint8, uint8)) add8)((uint8) 2, (uint8) 3)" " = 5"
base-commit: 490469846dcef89fe53668bdbba73591c64bed61
--
2.54.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-17 14:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-14 22:06 [PATCH 0/4] gdb/testsuite: "long double" infcall tests Pedro Alves
2026-07-14 22:06 ` [PATCH 1/4] gdb.base/nodebug.exp: Add long double testing Pedro Alves
2026-07-16 21:14 ` Andrew Burgess
2026-07-17 13:59 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2026-07-22 18:41 ` Andrew Burgess
2026-07-14 22:06 ` [PATCH 2/4] gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: Adjust for Windows Pedro Alves
2026-07-14 22:25 ` Pedro Alves
2026-07-16 21:26 ` Andrew Burgess
2026-07-17 14:27 ` Pedro Alves
2026-07-22 18:42 ` Andrew Burgess
2026-07-14 22:06 ` [PATCH 3/4] gdb.base/callfuncs.c: factor out float/double functions Pedro Alves
2026-07-16 21:33 ` Andrew Burgess
2026-07-14 22:06 ` [PATCH 4/4] gdb.base/callfuncs.exp: Exercise "long double" Pedro Alves
2026-07-16 21:36 ` Andrew Burgess
2026-07-22 13:01 ` [PATCH 0/4] gdb/testsuite: "long double" infcall tests Pedro Alves
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=215cfb6b-c439-4958-aea2-5787bf2da2d6@palves.net \
--to=pedro@palves.net \
--cc=aburgess@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
/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