Re: [PATCH] [Arm] Fix endianness handling for arm record self tests

[Tom de Vries via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>]

On 8/9/22 11:43, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 8/8/22 12:12, Luis Machado wrote:
>> The arm record tests handle 16-bit and 32-bit thumb instructions, but the
>> code is laid out in a way that handles the 32-bit thumb instructions as
>> two 16-bit parts.
>>
>> This is fine, but it is prone to host-endianness issues given how the two
>> 16-bit parts are stored and how they are accessed later on. Arm is
>> little-endian by default, so running this test with a GDB built with
>> --enable-targets=all and on a big endian host will run into the 
>> following:
>>
>> Running selftest arm-record.
>> Process record and replay target doesn't support syscall number -2036195
>> Process record does not support instruction 0x7f70ee1d at address 0x0.
>> Self test failed: self-test failed at 
>> ../../binutils-gdb/gdb/arm-tdep.c:14482
>>
>> Investigating this a bit further, there seems to be a chance to do a 
>> simple
>> fix through a type template, using uint16_t for 16-bit thumb instructions
>> and uint32_t for 32-bit thumb instructions.
>>
>> This patch implements this.
>>
> 
> Hi Luis,
> 
> LGTM.
> 
> I noticed btw that this:
> ...
> diff --git a/gdb/arm-tdep.c b/gdb/arm-tdep.c
> index 57b865a0819..1e6d9ba65be 100644
> --- a/gdb/arm-tdep.c
> +++ b/gdb/arm-tdep.c
> @@ -14489,6 +14489,29 @@ arm_record_test (void)
>       SELF_CHECK (arm_record.reg_rec_count == 1);
>       SELF_CHECK (arm_record.arm_regs[0] == 7);
>     }
> +
> +
> +  /* 32-bit instructions.  */
> +  {
> +    arm_insn_decode_record arm_record;
> +
> +    memset (&arm_record, 0, sizeof (arm_insn_decode_record));
> +    arm_record.gdbarch = gdbarch;
> +
> +    /* Use the endian-free representation of the instruction here.  The 
> test
> +       will handle endianness conversions.  */
> +    static const uint32_t insns[] = {
> +      /* mov     r5, r0 */
> +      0xe1a05000,
> +    };
> +
> +    enum bfd_endian endian = gdbarch_byte_order_for_code 
> (arm_record.gdbarch);
> +    instruction_reader_thumb<uint32_t> reader (endian, insns);
> +    int ret = decode_insn (reader, &arm_record, ARM_RECORD,
> +                          ARM_INSN_SIZE_BYTES);
> +
> +    SELF_CHECK (ret == 0);
> +  }
>   }
> 
>   /* Instruction reader from manually cooked instruction sequences.  */
> ...
> works fine, so I wonder if instruction_reader_thumb is a misnomer, 
> perhaps we call it instruction_reader_selftest or some such, and add the 
> arm32 insn to cover that case?
> 
> Also I wondered if these checks
> ...
>      SELF_CHECK (len == 4 || len == 2);
>      SELF_CHECK (memaddr % 2 == 0);
>      SELF_CHECK ((memaddr / 2) < m_insns_size);
> ...
> can be made more specific based on the template argument T.

Also, I think this is more clear:
...
-store_unsigned_integer (buf, sizeof (T), m_endian,
                          m_insns[memaddr / 2]);
+store_unsigned_integer (buf, sizeof (T), m_endian,
                          m_insns[memaddr / sizeof (T)]);
...

Thanks,
- Tom