Re: [PATCH][gdb/symtab] Fix duplicate CUs in create_cus_from_debug_names_list

[Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>]

On 2/3/21 7:29 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2021-02-02 6:35 a.m., Tom de Vries wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> When running test-case gdb.dwarf2/clang-debug-names.exp, I run into the
>> following warning:
>> ...
>> (gdb) file clang-debug-names^M
>> Reading symbols from clang-debug-names...^M
>> warning: Section .debug_aranges in clang-debug-names has duplicate \
>>   debug_info_offset 0xc7, ignoring .debug_aranges.^M
>> ...
>>
>> This is caused by a missing return in commit 3ee6bb113af "[gdb/symtab] Fix
>> incomplete CU list assert in .debug_names".
>>
>> Fix this by adding the missing return, such that we have instead this warning:
>> ...
>> (gdb) file clang-debug-names^M
>> Reading symbols from clang-debug-names...^M
>> warning: Section .debug_aranges in clang-debug-names \
>>   entry at offset 0 debug_info_offset 0 does not exists, \
>>   ignoring .debug_aranges.^M
>> ...
>> which is a known problem filed as PR25969 - "Ignoring .debug_aranges with
>> clang .debug_names".
>>
>> Tested on x86_64-linux.
>>
>> Any comments?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> - Tom
>>
>> [gdb/symtab] Fix duplicate CUs in create_cus_from_debug_names_list
>>
>> gdb/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2021-02-02  Tom de Vries  <tdevries@suse.de>
>>
>> 	PR symtab/27307
>> 	* dwarf2/read.c (create_cus_from_debug_names_list): Add missing
>> 	return.
>>
>> gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>
>> 2021-02-02  Tom de Vries  <tdevries@suse.de>
>>
>> 	PR symtab/27307
>> 	* gdb.dwarf2/clang-debug-names.exp: Check file command warnings.
>>
>> ---
>>  gdb/dwarf2/read.c                              |  1 +
>>  gdb/testsuite/gdb.dwarf2/clang-debug-names.exp | 16 ++++++++++++++++
>>  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/gdb/dwarf2/read.c b/gdb/dwarf2/read.c
>> index 0a00f89cf6d..872b4e7bcf2 100644
>> --- a/gdb/dwarf2/read.c
>> +++ b/gdb/dwarf2/read.c
>> @@ -5323,6 +5323,7 @@ create_cus_from_debug_names_list (dwarf2_per_bfd *per_bfd,
>>  	  = create_cu_from_index_list (per_bfd, &section, is_dwz, sect_off, 0);
>>  	per_bfd->all_comp_units.push_back (per_cu);
>>        }
>> +      return;
>>      }
> 
> I don't know the specific details of this, but from a quick glance it
> makes sense.  It seems like two methods of patsing the CU table, we
> don't want to run through the two methods.

Thanks for the review.

> I noticed the indentation is
> wrong in the code above, could you push a patch to fix that?

Done, and committed this one.

Thanks,
- Tom