From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B471D3840C2D for ; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 14:52:25 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org B471D3840C2D Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=suse.de Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=tdevries@suse.de X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C367AB8F; Thu, 11 Jun 2020 14:52:28 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [committed][gdb/testsuite] Make gdb.base/dbx.exp more robust To: Simon Marchi , Pedro Alves , Andrew Burgess Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20200519163004.GA9045@delia> <20200602153830.GZ3522@embecosm.com> <72b3c10c-d316-9a0e-13e9-56dee7c765a7@redhat.com> <5d6277ac-76ea-5f47-ab9e-7da58fbddd6e@suse.de> <9352af37-7ed7-661c-11f1-59fbc6a886e9@suse.de> <33977d5b-3735-eaef-36fa-584f9111b5de@simark.ca> From: Tom de Vries Autocrypt: addr=tdevries@suse.de; keydata= xsBNBF0ltCcBCADDhsUnMMdEXiHFfqJdXeRvgqSEUxLCy/pHek88ALuFnPTICTwkf4g7uSR7 HvOFUoUyu8oP5mNb4VZHy3Xy8KRZGaQuaOHNhZAT1xaVo6kxjswUi3vYgGJhFMiLuIHdApoc u5f7UbV+egYVxmkvVLSqsVD4pUgHeSoAcIlm3blZ1sDKviJCwaHxDQkVmSsGXImaAU+ViJ5l CwkvyiiIifWD2SoOuFexZyZ7RUddLosgsO0npVUYbl6dEMq2a5ijGF6/rBs1m3nAoIgpXk6P TCKlSWVW6OCneTaKM5C387972qREtiArTakRQIpvDJuiR2soGfdeJ6igGA1FZjU+IsM5ABEB AAHNH1RvbSBkZSBWcmllcyA8dGRldnJpZXNAc3VzZS5kZT7CwKsEEwEIAD4WIQSsnSe5hKbL MK1mGmjuhV2rbOJEoAUCXSW0JwIbAwUJA8JnAAULCQgHAgYVCgkICwIEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAh CRDuhV2rbOJEoBYhBKydJ7mEpsswrWYaaO6FXats4kSgc48H/Ra2lq5p3dHsrlQLqM7N68Fo eRDf3PMevXyMlrCYDGLVncQwMw3O/AkousktXKQ42DPJh65zoXB22yUt8m0g12xkLax98KFJ 5NyUloa6HflLl+wQL/uZjIdNUQaHQLw3HKwRMVi4l0/Jh/TygYG1Dtm8I4o708JS4y8GQxoQ UL0z1OM9hyM3gI2WVTTyprsBHy2EjMOu/2Xpod95pF8f90zBLajy6qXEnxlcsqreMaqmkzKn 3KTZpWRxNAS/IH3FbGQ+3RpWkNGSJpwfEMVCeyK5a1n7yt1podd1ajY5mA1jcaUmGppqx827 8TqyteNe1B/pbiUt2L/WhnTgW1NC1QDOwE0EXSW0JwEIAM99H34Bu4MKM7HDJVt864MXbx7B 1M93wVlpJ7Uq+XDFD0A0hIal028j+h6jA6bhzWto4RUfDl/9mn1StngNVFovvwtfzbamp6+W pKHZm9X5YvlIwCx131kTxCNDcF+/adRW4n8CU3pZWYmNVqhMUiPLxElA6QhXTtVBh1RkjCZQ Kmbd1szvcOfaD8s+tJABJzNZsmO2hVuFwkDrRN8Jgrh92a+yHQPd9+RybW2l7sJv26nkUH5Z 5s84P6894ebgimcprJdAkjJTgprl1nhgvptU5M9Uv85Pferoh2groQEAtRPlCGrZ2/2qVNe9 XJfSYbiyedvApWcJs5DOByTaKkcAEQEAAcLAkwQYAQgAJhYhBKydJ7mEpsswrWYaaO6FXats 4kSgBQJdJbQnAhsMBQkDwmcAACEJEO6FXats4kSgFiEErJ0nuYSmyzCtZhpo7oVdq2ziRKD3 twf7BAQBZ8TqR812zKAD7biOnWIJ0McV72PFBxmLIHp24UVe0ZogtYMxSWKLg3csh0yLVwc7 H3vldzJ9AoK3Qxp0Q6K/rDOeUy3HMqewQGcqrsRRh0NXDIQk5CgSrZslPe47qIbe3O7ik/MC q31FNIAQJPmKXX25B115MMzkSKlv4udfx7KdyxHrTSkwWZArLQiEZj5KG4cCKhIoMygPTA3U yGaIvI/BGOtHZ7bEBVUCFDFfOWJ26IOCoPnSVUvKPEOH9dv+sNy7jyBsP5QxeTqwxC/1ZtNS DUCSFQjqA6bEGwM22dP8OUY6SC94x1G81A9/xbtm9LQxKm0EiDH8KBMLfQ== Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:52:20 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <33977d5b-3735-eaef-36fa-584f9111b5de@simark.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, GIT_PATCH_0, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 14:52:27 -0000 On 11-06-2020 16:39, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 2020-06-11 8:11 a.m., Tom de Vries wrote: >> [ was: Re: [PATCH 3/3][gdb/testsuite] Warn about leaked global array ] >> >> On 04-06-2020 13:40, Tom de Vries wrote: >>>> BTW, global variables alone aren't the full scope of the >>>> bleeding between testcases. There's also the case of >>>> testcases overriding procedures, like gdb.base/dbx.exp, >>>> but those are perhaps rare enough that we can continue >>>> handling it "manually" as before. >>> AFAICT, that test-case does an effort to undo the override, though I'm >>> not sure how certain it is that the undo will be executed. >> >> I've committed patch below to make sure the undo is executed (and >> similar for GDBFLAGS). >> >> Thanks, >> - Tom >> > > Ah! That reminded me that I had a patch I had forgotten about that did something > similar: > > https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2020-May/169109.html > Sorry, didn't notice that one. > I'm fine with your version. Right, I see the solutions are really the same. > One nit: you have an unnecessary return at the end of > the with_override proc. Um, if I add this code to a random test-case: ... diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/O2_float_param.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/O2_float_param.exp index 09ebeec405..31c36c9cde 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/O2_float_param.exp +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/O2_float_param.exp @@ -29,3 +29,17 @@ runto "increment" gdb_test "frame" \ "#0\\s+callee\\.increment \\(val(=val@entry)?=99\\.0, msg=\\.\\.\\.\\).*" + +proc foo { } { + return 1 +} + +proc foo_2 {} { + return 2 +} + +set res [foo] +puts "RES: $res" + +set res [with_override foo foo_2 foo] +puts "RES: $res" ... And run it, I get: ... RES: 1 RES: 2 ... but if I remove the return at the end of with_override, I get instead: ... Running /data/gdb_versions/devel/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/O2_float_param.exp ... RES: 1 RES: ... So, I'm not sure why you say that it's not necessary. Thanks, - Tom