Re: [PATCH][gdb/symtab] Handle DW_AT_ranges with DW_FORM_sec_off in partial DIE

[Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>]

On 1/26/21 2:52 AM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2021-01-25 1:53 p.m., Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> On 1/25/21 7:12 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2021-01-25 12:42 p.m., Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>>>> On 1/25/21 5:36 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>>>>>> Yes, unfortunately I have not any experience with writing such assembly
>>>>>> tests, but I am always impressed when one of you does it though :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nevertheless, the test case seems to be stable from gcc-4.8 .. gcc-11,
>>>>>> that it fails without the patch and passes with the patch.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So is it okay to push my partial symbols test as-is?
>>>>>
>>>>> My patch here adds a test that uses DW_FORM_sec_offset to point
>>>>> to a .debug_rnglists (DWARF5) section.  Maybe that's sufficient,
>>>>> but if not I could probably do a DWARF4 equivalent.
>>>>>
>>>>>   https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-January/175229.html
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, the hardest part on a one-line change like this is always the test case.
>>>>
>>>> So, I tried this patch on current trunk, but it fails:
>>>>
>>>> Running /home/ed/gnu/gdb-build-1/gdb/testsuite/../../../binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/rnglists-multiple-cus.exp ...
>>>> ERROR: Couldn't load rnglists-multiple-cus-dw32 into GDB (GDB internal error).
>>>> ERROR: Couldn't load rnglists-multiple-cus-dw64 into GDB (GDB internal error).
>>>> Running /home/ed/gnu/gdb-build-1/gdb/testsuite/../../../binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/rnglists-sec-offset.exp ...
>>>> FAIL: gdb.dwarf2/rnglists-sec-offset.exp: is_64=false: p/x &foo
>>>> FAIL: gdb.dwarf2/rnglists-sec-offset.exp: is_64=true: p/x &foo
>>>>
>>>> This probably means that your test tests more than this single-line change alone?
>>>
>>> Hmm, with current master (so with Tom's patch merged),
>>> gdb.dwarf2/rnglists-sec-offset.exp passes for me.
>>>
>>
>> That will probably need investigation.
>> Let's first check if I applied the corrrect test case,
>> see attached patch.txt.
> 
> It looks like the right patch (I looked at your second patch.txt).
> 

Ah, sorry, my fault.

I have done the test with the wrong version,
now the test passes for me as well.


Bernd.