Re: [PATCH] Add gdb.fortran/vla-stride.exp and report a bug

[Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>]

On Saturday, January 18 2020, Andrew Burgess wrote:

> * Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com> [2020-01-13 22:46:33 -0500]:
>
>> On Thursday, November 14 2019, Andrew Burgess wrote:
>> 
>> > Change URL: https://gnutoolchain-gerrit.osci.io/r/c/binutils-gdb/+/627
>> > ......................................................................
>> >
>> > gdb/fortran: array stride support
>> > [...]
>> 
>> Hey Andrew,
>> 
>> I found a problem with this patch, and I'd like to know if you've
>> noticed this as well.  I first encountered the problem while doing
>> downstream work on Fedora GDB for Fedora Rawhide; as you are probably
>> aware, we carry *a lot* of local Fortran VLA patches on Fedora GDB (if
>> you're not aware about this, feel free to get in touch with me and I'll
>> be more than happy to explain the situation to you).  However, I am able
>> to reproduce the problem on upstream GDB as well.
>> 
>> On Fedora GDB, we carry a testcase called gdb.fortran/vla-stride.exp.  I'm
>> attaching it to this message.  One of its tests fails with:
>> 
>>   (gdb) print pvla
>>   Cannot access memory at address 0x426000
>>   FAIL: gdb.fortran/vla-stride.exp: print single-element
>
> Sergio,
>
> First, apologies for not replying sooner, I completely missed this
> mail.  My bad!

That's totally fine -- I also took too long to reply.

> Thanks for the bug report.  Yes I'm aware that Fedora carries some
> Fortran patches, its on my (ever growing) todo list that I should take
> a look at them one day.  It kind-of sucks that my top of tree GDB is
> sometimes not as good as my slightly older distro-installed GDB!

Hah, yeah :-).  It'd be great to have your help with the patches; let me
know when you can dedicate some time, and we can coordinate efforts.

> I put together a patch for this issue (see below) it passes your test
> case on my machine (with no other regressions), but it would be neat
> if you could confirm it resolves the issue for you.

Thanks a lot.  I've just confirmed that the patch indeed fixes the
issue.

> One question - I included your testcase in this patch, I just wanted
> to check that this is OK for upstream (w.r.t. copyright assignment, etc)?

So, as we discussed on IRC, I don't have the exact authorship
information for the testcase, but I think it was written by Bernhard
Heckel <bernhard dot heckel at intel dot com>.  I'm almost sure that
this was contributed by Intel, and if that's the case, then they have
copyright assignment on file with us, so it should be fine to push the
patch as is.

I'll let you know if I find more info on this, but apparently (based on
our IRC talk) you're going to write a new test anyway, so please don't
wait for me.

Cheers,

-- 
Sergio
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF  31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/