[ was: Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Fix index-cache.exp with
CC_WITH_TWEAKS_FLAGS=-i ]

On 03-05-19 23:17, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2019-05-03 6:43 a.m., Tom de Vries wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> When running gdb.base/index-cache.exp with target board cc-with-tweaks with
>> CC_WITH_TWEAKS_FLAGS set to "-i", we run into:
>> ...
>> FAIL: gdb.base/index-cache.exp: test_cache_enabled_miss: at least one file \
>>       was created
>> FAIL: gdb.base/index-cache.exp: test_cache_enabled_miss: expected file is there
>> FAIL: gdb.base/index-cache.exp: test_cache_enabled_miss: check index-cache stats
>> FAIL: gdb.base/index-cache.exp: test_cache_enabled_hit: check index-cache stats
>> ...
>>
>> The problem is that the target board makes sure that the generated executable
>> contains a .gdb_index section, while the test assumes that the executable
>> doesn't contain this section.
>>
>> Fix this by removing the .gdb_index section from the generated executable.
>>
>> Tested on x86_64-linux with native and CC_WITH_TWEAKS_FLAGS=-i config.
>>
>> OK for trunk?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Tom
> 
> Hi Tom,
> 
> I would slightly prefer that instead of doing this, we would notice that that file
> already has an index (in the form of .gdb_index or .debug_names), and adjust our
> expectations in the test.
> 
> In other words, we currently assert that loading the file in GDB will produce some
> files in the cache.  However, if we know that the file already has an index, we
> should verify that no file was produced, as this is the behavior we expect when
> loading a file which already has an index.
> 
> Stripping the index makes the test pass, but it just goes back to testing the same
> thing as with the default board file.  Adjusting our expectation to the presence
> of an index makes the test cover a different use case.

I've implemented this approach, attached below.

OK for trunk?

Thanks,
- Tom