Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>,
	Stan Shebs <stanshebs@earthlink.net>,
	 GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>,
	Ulrich Weigand <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, testsuite] Don't run SREC, IHEX and TEKHEX tests for MIPS N64.
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2013 20:19:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <51D48763.7020703@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51D47AC4.1020208@redhat.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2661 bytes --]

On 07/03/2013 04:25 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 07/03/2013 08:22 PM, Luis Machado wrote:
>> On 07/03/2013 12:05 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> On 07/02/2013 07:50 PM, Luis Machado wrote:
>>>> -
>>>> -if {[istarget "spu*-*-*"]} then {
>>>> -    # The internal address format used for the combined Cell/B.E.
>>>> -    # debugger requires 64-bit.
>>>> -    set is64bitonly "yes"
>>>> -}
>>>> -
>>>
>>> I'm not sure this equates to sizeof pointer == 64-bit.
>>> This bit may need to be retained.  [Adding Ulrich].
>>
>> Fair enough. Ulrich, let me know if the pointer check in the attached
>> patch doesn't make sense for Cell BE.
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> +    set sizeof_function_ptr [get_sizeof "void (*)(void)" 8]
>>>> +    set sizeof_data_ptr [get_sizeof "void *" 8]
>>>> +    if {${sizeof_function_ptr} != 4 && ${sizeof_data_ptr} != 4} then {
>>>> +	set is64bitonly "yes"
>>>> +    }
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>
>>> srec (etc.) is most used in small embedded targets (e.g., those
>>> that include dsrec.o in the configure.tgt), consequently
>>> that's where the test is most useful.  Such targets
>>> are the most likely to have 16-bit pointers (< 4 bytes).
>>> E.g., h8300, etc.  Looks like this ends up causing the tests to
>>> be skipped there too.  IOW, a better check would be:
>>>
>>>      if {${sizeof_function_ptr} > 4 || ${sizeof_data_ptr} > 4} then {
>>>
>>
>> Ah, yes. This check is indeed better. Follows an updated patch that does
>> this.
>>
>>> But, this change also means we have reduced routine-checking,
>>> as most people test on x86_64.  I think we can do better.  The test
>>> works fine on e.g., x86_64, because programs get linked to low (< 32-bit)
>>> addresses by default.  That's the point of:
>>>
>>> if [istarget "alpha*-*-*"] then {
>>>       # SREC etc cannot handle 64-bit addresses.  Force the test
>>>       # program into the low 31 bits of the address space.
>>>       lappend options "additional_flags=-Wl,-taso"
>>> }
>>>
>>> (For MIPS N64, if you wanted, I guess you could do similarly
>>>    to Alpha, and rebuild with:
>>>
>>>     lappend options "ldflags=-Wl,-Tdata=0x600000"
>>>
>>>    to force use of low addresses.)
>>>
>>> IOW, instead of checking for ABI pointer sizes, I think it'd
>>> be better to test for the actual address size of one the
>>> variables dumped.  That is, check that &intarray is < 32-bit.
>>>
>>
>> If lack of coverage for x86_64 running things on low addresses is a
>> problem, we can add an exception for x86_64, what do you think? Adding
>> these exceptions usually polute the testcases though.
>
> But do you see a problem with checking whether "&intarray is < 32-bit" instead?
>

Not really. Like so?

Luis

[-- Attachment #2: dump.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 1643 bytes --]

2013-07-03  Luis Machado  <lgustavo@codesourcery.com>

	* gdb.base/dump.exp: Remove arch-specific tests and do a
	generic data address check to set is64bitonly correctly.

Index: gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/dump.exp
===================================================================
--- gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/dump.exp	(revision 415997)
+++ gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/dump.exp	(working copy)
@@ -32,16 +32,6 @@
     lappend options "additional_flags=-Wl,-taso"
 }
 
-if {[istarget "ia64*-*-*"] || [istarget "hppa64-*-*"]} then {
-    set is64bitonly "yes"
-}
-
-if {[istarget "spu*-*-*"]} then {
-    # The internal address format used for the combined Cell/B.E.
-    # debugger requires 64-bit.
-    set is64bitonly "yes"
-}
-
 if  { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable ${options}] != "" } {
      untested dump.exp
      return -1
@@ -58,6 +48,15 @@
 
 gdb_load ${binfile}
 
+# Check the address of a variable.  If it is bigger than 32-bit,
+# assume our target has 64-bit addresses that are not supported by SREC,
+# IHEX and TEKHEX.  We skip those tests then.
+set max_32bit_address "0xffffffff"
+set data_address [get_hexadecimal_valueof "&intarray" 0x100000000]
+if {${data_address} > ${max_32bit_address}} then {
+    set is64bitonly "yes"
+}
+
 # Clean up any stale output files from previous test runs
 
 remote_exec build "rm -f intarr1.bin intarr1b.bin intarr1.ihex intarr1.srec intarr1.tekhex intarr2.bin intarr2b.bin intarr2.ihex intarr2.srec intarr2.tekhex intstr1.bin intstr1b.bin intstr1.ihex intstr1.srec intstr1.tekhex intstr2.bin intstr2b.bin intstr2.ihex intstr2.srec intstr2.tekhex intarr3.srec"

  reply	other threads:[~2013-07-03 20:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-07-01 16:24 Luis Machado
2013-07-02 14:37 ` Yao Qi
2013-07-02 14:45   ` Luis Machado
2013-07-03  0:03     ` Yao Qi
2013-07-02 16:47 ` Tom Tromey
2013-07-02 16:51   ` Luis Machado
2013-07-02 17:19     ` Stan Shebs
2013-07-02 18:10       ` Tom Tromey
2013-07-02 18:50         ` Luis Machado
2013-07-02 20:55           ` Tom Tromey
2013-07-03 15:05           ` Pedro Alves
2013-07-03 19:23             ` Luis Machado
2013-07-03 19:26               ` Pedro Alves
2013-07-03 20:19                 ` Luis Machado [this message]
2013-07-04  8:11                   ` Pedro Alves
2013-07-06  2:41                     ` Luis Machado
2013-07-03 20:35               ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2013-07-03 20:54                 ` Luis Machado
2013-07-03 21:08                   ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2013-07-04 11:48                     ` Luis Machado
2013-07-04 12:13                       ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2013-07-04 12:21                         ` Luis Machado
2013-07-04 13:22               ` Ulrich Weigand
2013-07-04 13:24                 ` Luis Machado

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=51D48763.7020703@codesourcery.com \
    --to=lgustavo@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=palves@redhat.com \
    --cc=stanshebs@earthlink.net \
    --cc=tromey@redhat.com \
    --cc=uweigand@de.ibm.com \
    /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