Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com>
To: Steve Ellcey <sellcey@caviumnetworks.com>
Cc: binutils <binutils@sourceware.org>,
	gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>,
		Yury Norov <ynorov@caviumnetworks.com>,
	Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>,
		"Pinski, Andrew" <Andrew.Pinski@cavium.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Patch 2 of 2 for aarch64 ILP32 support in gdb
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 22:20:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAH=s-PNyfTBiXH-hwLjnTswFLZGF46czNXqBg0TKojEojyB3Sg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1485904559.22118.17.camel@caviumnetworks.com>

On 17-01-31 15:15:59, Steve Ellcey wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-01-29 at 22:40 +0000, Yao Qi wrote:
>
> > This changes the word size and address size, which is used to determine
> > the inferior is arm or aarch64 by checking "bits_per_word == 32" in
> > multi-arch debugging.????You can find some instances of such check in
> > aarch64-linux-nat.c.????If the bits_per_word is 32 in ILP32, GDB thinks
> > the inferior is an ARM one, rather than an AArch64 ILP32 one. which is
> > wrong.????We need to tweak the condition above to correctly identify the
> > ARM inferior.
> >??
> > Do you compare the ILP32 gdb test result with normal aarch64 one?
>
> OK, I fixed up??arch64-linux-nat.c and didn't find any other places were
> the bits_per_word was being checked and I fixed the TRUE/true
> FALSE/false constants. ??If I run gdb without any changes or with this
> patch but debugging 64 bit code I get around 500 failures. ??The number
> doesn't seem to be constant, I have gotten anywhere from 488 to 503
> failures testing the same code. ??My last run had:
>
> # of expected passes????????????????????????30428
> # of unexpected failures????????????????503
> # of expected failures????????????????????53
> # of unknown successes????????????????????2
> # of known failures??????????????????????????64
> # of untested testcases??????????????????66
> # of unresolved testcases??????????????6
> # of unsupported tests????????????????????293
>
> Many of the failures seem to be thread related and I see a lot of
> messages about timeouts and 'program is no longer running'. ??When

If you get 500 fails in vanilla GDB on aarch64-linux, there must be
something wrong.  We only have 36 fails in buildbot slave.

What is your compiler, library and kernel?  They may have some local
ilp32 patches.

> I run gdb on 32 bit programs with:
>
> RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix/-mabi=ilp32"
>
> I get 700+ failures. ??My last run had:
>
> # of expected passes????????????????????????29482
> # of unexpected failures????????????????740
> # of expected failures????????????????????30
> # of unknown successes????????????????????2
> # of known failures??????????????????????????65
> # of untested testcases??????????????????79
> # of unresolved testcases??????????????4
> # of unsupported tests????????????????????288
>
> So there are more failures in ILP32 mode but there seem to be enough
> passes that I think it still makes sense to check in the patch to get
> some gdb functionality working.
>

"even if GDB is horribly broken, many tests will still pass."
https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/TestingGDB#Caveat_emptor

500 fails and 240 regressions are not a good signal.
I don't see anything wrong from ilp32 gdb patch here, but I suspect
these 500 fails are caused by some bugs or oversights in other parts,
such as kernel or gliblc.  aarch64-linux GDB test shouldn't have 500 fails on
aarch64-linux system with ilp32 enabled.  Could you dig it out?

-- 
Yao


  reply	other threads:[~2017-02-01 22:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-01-25  0:20 Steve Ellcey
2017-01-26 14:14 ` Yao Qi
2017-01-27 22:26   ` Steve Ellcey
2017-01-29 22:41     ` Yao Qi
2017-01-31 23:16       ` Steve Ellcey
2017-02-01 22:20         ` Yao Qi [this message]
2017-02-01 22:23           ` Yao Qi
2017-02-02  0:27           ` Steve Ellcey
2017-02-02  0:40           ` Steve Ellcey
2017-02-02  9:52             ` Yao Qi
2017-02-02 22:04               ` Steve Ellcey
2017-02-03  9:17                 ` Yao Qi

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='CAH=s-PNyfTBiXH-hwLjnTswFLZGF46czNXqBg0TKojEojyB3Sg@mail.gmail.com' \
    --to=qiyaoltc@gmail.com \
    --cc=Andrew.Pinski@cavium.com \
    --cc=binutils@sourceware.org \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    --cc=schwab@suse.de \
    --cc=sellcey@caviumnetworks.com \
    --cc=ynorov@caviumnetworks.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