* [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.go/methods.exp
@ 2020-02-21 11:02 Tom de Vries
2020-02-21 14:54 ` Tom Tromey
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tom de Vries @ 2020-02-21 11:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
Hi,
With gccgo-6/7, we have:
...
FAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at main.T.Foo
XFAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: going to first breakpoint \
(the program exited)
FAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at (*main.T).Bar
XFAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: going to second breakpoint \
(the program is no longer running)
...
And with gccgo-8/9/10, we have:
...
PASS: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint 1
XFAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: going to first breakpoint
FAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at (*main.T).Bar
XFAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: going to second breakpoint \
(the program exited)
...
The first test passes and fails with different messages:
...
FAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at main.T.Foo
...
or:
...
PASS: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint 1
...
Fix this by removing the explicit pass call and using the message argument for
gdb_breakpoint, for both breakpoint locations.
The setup of the xfails is non-specific:
...
setup_xfail "*-*-*" ;# mangling issues IIRC
...
so let's start with removing these.
The first FAIL with gccgo-6:
...
FAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at main.T.Foo
...
is due an incorrect DW_AT_name attribute:
...
# <554> DW_AT_name : main.Foo.N6_main.T
...
Fix this by recognizing the incorrect attribute, and xfailing the test.
Furthermore, if setting the breakpoint fails, there's not much point in trying
to continue to the breakpoint:
...
FAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at main.T.Foo
FAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: going to first breakpoint (the program exited)
...
Fix this by skipping the second test if the first one fails, also for the
second breakpoint.
With gccgo-10, we manage to set the first breakpoint, but continuing to
breakpoint test fails:
...
PASS: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint 1
XFAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: going to first breakpoint
...
This is due to an incorrect regexp, requiring a colon in front of the
breakpoint location. Fix this for both breakpoints.
Setting the second breakpoint fails:
...
FAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at (*main.T).Bar
...
presumably because the breakpoint location "(*main.T).Bar" does not follow the
naming convention explained at https://golang.org/doc/gdb#Naming. Fix this by
updating the breakpoint location to "main.(*T).Bar".
Still this test fails, for gccgo-6/7 because of an incorrect DW_AT_name
attribute:
...
# <529> DW_AT_name : main.Bar.pN6_main.T
...
and for gccgo-8/9/10 because of incorrect DW_AT_name/DW_AT_linkage_name
attributes (filed as gcc PR93866):
...
# <6e5> DW_AT_name : main.Bar..1main.T
# <6ec> DW_AT_linkage_name: main.T.Bar
..
Add xfails for both of these.
All in all, now we have with gccgo-6/7:
...
XFAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at main.T.Foo
XFAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at main.(*T).Bar
...
and with gccgo-8/9/10, we have:
...
PASS: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at main.T.Foo
PASS: gdb.go/methods.exp: going to first breakpoint
XFAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at main.(*T).Bar
...
Tested on x86_64-linux with gccgo-6/7/8/9/10.
OK for trunk?
Thanks,
- Tom
[gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.go/methods.exp
gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2020-02-21 Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
PR go/18926
* lib/gdb.exp (exec_contains_debug_info_string): New proc.
* lib/gdb.exp (bp_location2/bp_location2_regexp): Fix.
Remove blanket xfails. Use message argument for gdb_breakpoint.
Make continuing to breakpoint test conditional on setting breakpoint.
Fix continuing to breakpoint regexp. Add xfails for gccgo-6/7
DW_AT_name attribute. Add xfail for GCC PR93866.
---
gdb/testsuite/gdb.go/methods.exp | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp | 12 +++++++++
2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.go/methods.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.go/methods.exp
index e698cf378f..3b4b56ccc4 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.go/methods.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.go/methods.exp
@@ -29,22 +29,57 @@ if { [prepare_for_testing "failed to prepare" ${testfile} ${srcfile} {debug go}]
}
set bp_location1 {main.T.Foo}
-set bp_location2 {(*main.T).Bar}
-set bp_location2_regexp {\(*main.T\).Bar}
+set bp_location2 {main.(*T).Bar}
+set bp_location2_regexp {main.\(\*T\).Bar}
if { [go_runto_main] < 0 } {
untested "could not run to main"
return -1
}
-if { [gdb_breakpoint ${bp_location1}] } {
- pass "setting breakpoint 1"
+if { [exec_contains_debug_info_string $binfile \
+ "DW_AT_name.*: main.Foo.N6_main.T"] } {
+ # We have with gccgo-6/7:
+ # <1><553>: Abbrev Number: 21 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
+ # <554> DW_AT_name : main.Foo.N6_main.T
+ setup_xfail "*-*-*"
+} else {
+ # We have with gccgo-8/9/10:
+ # <1><1e24>: Abbrev Number: 40 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
+ # <1e25> DW_AT_name : main.Foo.main.T
+ # <1e2c> DW_AT_linkage_name: main.T.Foo
+
+ # For reference: with go1.11.13:
+ # <1><6c46b>: Abbrev Number: 2 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
+ # <6c46c> DW_AT_name : main.T.Foo
+}
+
+if { [gdb_breakpoint ${bp_location1} message]} {
+ gdb_test "cont" "Breakpoint .*, ${bp_location1}.*" \
+ "going to first breakpoint"
}
-setup_xfail "*-*-*" ;# mangling issues IIRC
-gdb_test "cont" "Breakpoint .*:${bp_location1}.*" "going to first breakpoint"
-if { [gdb_breakpoint ${bp_location2}] } {
- pass "setting breakpoint 2"
+if { [exec_contains_debug_info_string $binfile \
+ "DW_AT_name.*: main.Bar.pN6_main.T"] } {
+ # We have with gccgo-6/7:
+ # <1><528>: Abbrev Number: 19 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
+ # <529> DW_AT_name : main.Bar.pN6_main.T
+ setup_xfail "*-*-*"
+} elseif { [exec_contains_debug_info_string $binfile \
+ "DW_AT_linkage_name.*: main.T.Bar"] } {
+ # We have with gccgo-8/9/10:
+ # <1><6e4>: Abbrev Number: 24 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
+ # <6e5> DW_AT_name : main.Bar..1main.T
+ # <6ec> DW_AT_linkage_name: main.T.Bar
+ # xfail for GCC PR93866
+ setup_xfail "*-*-*"
+} else {
+ # For reference: with go1.11.13:
+ # <1><6c49a>: Abbrev Number: 2 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
+ # <6c49b> DW_AT_name : main.(*T).Bar
+ }
+
+if { [gdb_breakpoint ${bp_location2} message] } {
+ gdb_test "cont" "Breakpoint .*, ${bp_location2_regexp}.*" \
+ "going to second breakpoint"
}
-setup_xfail "*-*-*" ;# mangling issues IIRC
-gdb_test "cont" "Breakpoint .*:${bp_location2_regexp}.*" "going to second breakpoint"
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp
index 81518b9646..d64e9d2ce8 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/lib/gdb.exp
@@ -5381,6 +5381,18 @@ proc exec_has_index_section { executable } {
return 0
}
+# Return 1 if the .debug_info section in EXECUTABLE matches regexp RE.
+
+proc exec_contains_debug_info_string { executable re } {
+ set readelf_program [gdb_find_readelf]
+ set res [catch {exec $readelf_program -wi $executable \
+ | grep -E "$re" }]
+ if { $res == 0 } {
+ return 1
+ }
+ return 0
+}
+
# Return list with major and minor version of readelf, or an empty list.
gdb_caching_proc readelf_version {
set readelf_program [gdb_find_readelf]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.go/methods.exp
2020-02-21 11:02 [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.go/methods.exp Tom de Vries
@ 2020-02-21 14:54 ` Tom Tromey
2020-02-21 16:17 ` Tom de Vries
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2020-02-21 14:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom de Vries; +Cc: gdb-patches
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de> writes:
Tom> +if { [exec_contains_debug_info_string $binfile \
Tom> + "DW_AT_name.*: main.Foo.N6_main.T"] } {
Is there a way to get this information from gdb itself?
Tom> +proc exec_contains_debug_info_string { executable re } {
Tom> + set readelf_program [gdb_find_readelf]
Tom> + set res [catch {exec $readelf_program -wi $executable \
Tom> + | grep -E "$re" }]
If not you should probably find a way to do this with objdump; unless
these tests are already ELF-only for some reason.
Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.go/methods.exp
2020-02-21 14:54 ` Tom Tromey
@ 2020-02-21 16:17 ` Tom de Vries
2020-02-21 18:36 ` Tom Tromey
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tom de Vries @ 2020-02-21 16:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: gdb-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 355 bytes --]
On 21-02-2020 15:54, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Tom" == Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de> writes:
>
> Tom> +if { [exec_contains_debug_info_string $binfile \
> Tom> + "DW_AT_name.*: main.Foo.N6_main.T"] } {
>
> Is there a way to get this information from gdb itself?
>
I managed using maintenance print symbols.
OK for trunk like this?
Thanks,
- Tom
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-gdb-testsuite-Fix-gdb.go-methods.exp.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 6721 bytes --]
[gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.go/methods.exp
With gccgo-6/7, we have:
...
FAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at main.T.Foo
XFAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: going to first breakpoint \
(the program exited)
FAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at (*main.T).Bar
XFAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: going to second breakpoint \
(the program is no longer running)
...
And with gccgo-8/9/10, we have:
...
PASS: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint 1
XFAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: going to first breakpoint
FAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at (*main.T).Bar
XFAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: going to second breakpoint \
(the program exited)
...
The first test passes and fails with different messages:
...
FAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at main.T.Foo
...
or:
...
PASS: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint 1
...
Fix this by removing the explicit pass call and using the message argument for
gdb_breakpoint, for both breakpoint locations.
The setup of the xfails is non-specific:
...
setup_xfail "*-*-*" ;# mangling issues IIRC
...
so let's start with removing these.
The first FAIL with gccgo-6:
...
FAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at main.T.Foo
...
is due an incorrect DW_AT_name attribute:
...
# <554> DW_AT_name : main.Foo.N6_main.T
...
Fix this by recognizing the incorrect attribute, and xfailing the test.
Furthermore, if setting the breakpoint fails, there's not much point in trying
to continue to the breakpoint:
...
FAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at main.T.Foo
FAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: going to first breakpoint (the program exited)
...
Fix this by skipping the second test if the first one fails, also for the
second breakpoint.
With gccgo-10, we manage to set the first breakpoint, but continuing to
breakpoint test fails:
...
PASS: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint 1
FAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: going to first breakpoint
...
This is due to an incorrect regexp, requiring a colon in front of the
breakpoint location. Fix this for both breakpoints.
Setting the second breakpoint fails:
...
FAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at (*main.T).Bar
...
presumably because the breakpoint location "(*main.T).Bar" does not follow the
naming convention explained at https://golang.org/doc/gdb#Naming. Fix this by
updating the breakpoint location to "main.(*T).Bar".
Still this test fails, for gccgo-6/7 because of an incorrect DW_AT_name
attribute:
...
# <529> DW_AT_name : main.Bar.pN6_main.T
...
and for gccgo-8/9/10 because of incorrect DW_AT_name/DW_AT_linkage_name
attributes (filed as gcc PR93866):
...
# <6e5> DW_AT_name : main.Bar..1main.T
# <6ec> DW_AT_linkage_name: main.T.Bar
..
Add xfails for both of these.
All in all, now we have with gccgo-6/7:
...
XFAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at main.T.Foo
XFAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at main.(*T).Bar
...
and with gccgo-8/9/10, we have:
...
PASS: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at main.T.Foo
PASS: gdb.go/methods.exp: going to first breakpoint
XFAIL: gdb.go/methods.exp: setting breakpoint at main.(*T).Bar
...
Tested on x86_64-linux with gccgo-6/7/8/9/10.
gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2020-02-21 Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
PR go/18926
* lib/gdb.exp (bp_location2/bp_location2_regexp): Fix.
Remove blanket xfails. Use message argument for gdb_breakpoint.
Make continuing to breakpoint test conditional on setting breakpoint.
Fix continuing to breakpoint regexp. Add xfails for gccgo-6/7
DW_AT_name attribute. Add xfail for GCC PR93866.
---
gdb/testsuite/gdb.go/methods.exp | 75 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 65 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.go/methods.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.go/methods.exp
index e698cf378f..b24ee14cf2 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.go/methods.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.go/methods.exp
@@ -29,22 +29,77 @@ if { [prepare_for_testing "failed to prepare" ${testfile} ${srcfile} {debug go}]
}
set bp_location1 {main.T.Foo}
-set bp_location2 {(*main.T).Bar}
-set bp_location2_regexp {\(*main.T\).Bar}
+set bp_location2 {main.(*T).Bar}
+set bp_location2_regexp {main.\(\*T\).Bar}
if { [go_runto_main] < 0 } {
untested "could not run to main"
return -1
}
-if { [gdb_breakpoint ${bp_location1}] } {
- pass "setting breakpoint 1"
+set found_wrong_foo 0
+set found_wrong_bar 0
+gdb_test_multiple "maintenance print symbols" "" {
+ -re "^\r\n void main.Foo.N6_main.T\[^\r\n\]*(?=\r\n)" {
+ set found_wrong_foo 1
+ exp_continue
+ }
+ -re "^\r\n void main.Bar.pN6_main.T\[^\r\n\]*(?=\r\n)" {
+ set found_wrong_bar 1
+ exp_continue
+ }
+ -re "^\r\n void main.T.Bar\[^\r\n\]*(?=\r\n)" {
+ set found_wrong_bar 2
+ exp_continue
+ }
+ -re "\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
+ pass $gdb_test_name
+ }
+ -re "\r\n\[^\r\n\]*(?=\r\n)" {
+ exp_continue
+ }
}
-setup_xfail "*-*-*" ;# mangling issues IIRC
-gdb_test "cont" "Breakpoint .*:${bp_location1}.*" "going to first breakpoint"
-if { [gdb_breakpoint ${bp_location2}] } {
- pass "setting breakpoint 2"
+if { $found_wrong_foo } {
+ # We have with gccgo-6/7:
+ # <1><553>: Abbrev Number: 21 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
+ # <554> DW_AT_name : main.Foo.N6_main.T
+ setup_xfail "*-*-*"
+} else {
+ # We have with gccgo-8/9/10:
+ # <1><1e24>: Abbrev Number: 40 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
+ # <1e25> DW_AT_name : main.Foo.main.T
+ # <1e2c> DW_AT_linkage_name: main.T.Foo
+
+ # For reference: with go1.11.13:
+ # <1><6c46b>: Abbrev Number: 2 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
+ # <6c46c> DW_AT_name : main.T.Foo
+}
+
+if { [gdb_breakpoint ${bp_location1} message]} {
+ gdb_test "cont" "Breakpoint .*, ${bp_location1}.*" \
+ "going to first breakpoint"
+}
+
+if { $found_wrong_bar == 1 } {
+ # We have with gccgo-6/7:
+ # <1><528>: Abbrev Number: 19 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
+ # <529> DW_AT_name : main.Bar.pN6_main.T
+ setup_xfail "*-*-*"
+} elseif { $found_wrong_bar == 2 } {
+ # We have with gccgo-8/9/10:
+ # <1><6e4>: Abbrev Number: 24 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
+ # <6e5> DW_AT_name : main.Bar..1main.T
+ # <6ec> DW_AT_linkage_name: main.T.Bar
+ # xfail for GCC PR93866
+ setup_xfail "*-*-*"
+} else {
+ # For reference: with go1.11.13:
+ # <1><6c49a>: Abbrev Number: 2 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
+ # <6c49b> DW_AT_name : main.(*T).Bar
+ }
+
+if { [gdb_breakpoint ${bp_location2} message] } {
+ gdb_test "cont" "Breakpoint .*, ${bp_location2_regexp}.*" \
+ "going to second breakpoint"
}
-setup_xfail "*-*-*" ;# mangling issues IIRC
-gdb_test "cont" "Breakpoint .*:${bp_location2_regexp}.*" "going to second breakpoint"
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.go/methods.exp
2020-02-21 16:17 ` Tom de Vries
@ 2020-02-21 18:36 ` Tom Tromey
2020-02-25 7:23 ` Tom de Vries
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tom Tromey @ 2020-02-21 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom de Vries; +Cc: Tom Tromey, gdb-patches
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de> writes:
Tom> I managed using maintenance print symbols.
Tom> OK for trunk like this?
Yes, thank you.
Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.go/methods.exp
2020-02-21 18:36 ` Tom Tromey
@ 2020-02-25 7:23 ` Tom de Vries
2020-02-25 7:24 ` Tom de Vries
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tom de Vries @ 2020-02-25 7:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: gdb-patches
On 21-02-2020 19:36, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Tom" == Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de> writes:
>
> Tom> I managed using maintenance print symbols.
>
> Tom> OK for trunk like this?
>
> Yes, thank you.
>
The gcc PR for which I added the xfail was closed, so this updates the
gdb test-case.
Committed as obvious.
Thanks,
- Tom
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.go/methods.exp
2020-02-25 7:23 ` Tom de Vries
@ 2020-02-25 7:24 ` Tom de Vries
2020-02-25 13:07 ` Tom Tromey
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Tom de Vries @ 2020-02-25 7:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Tom Tromey; +Cc: gdb-patches
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 392 bytes --]
[Fix ENOPATCH]
On 25-02-2020 08:23, Tom de Vries wrote:
> On 21-02-2020 19:36, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>>> "Tom" == Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de> writes:
>>
>> Tom> I managed using maintenance print symbols.
>>
>> Tom> OK for trunk like this?
>>
>> Yes, thank you.
>>
>
> The gcc PR for which I added the xfail was closed, so this updates the
> gdb test-case.
>
> Committed as obvious.
>
[-- Attachment #2: 0001-gdb-testsuite-Remove-gcc-93866-xfail-in-methods.exp.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 2336 bytes --]
[gdb/testsuite] Remove gcc/93866 xfail in methods.exp
The test-case gdb.go/methods.exp contains an xfail for PR gcc/93866.
However, that PR has been marked resolved-wontfix, with clarification that the
gccgo symbol names for methods are correct, even if they're not the same as
for gc.
Remove the xfail.
Tested on x86_64-linux with gccgo-10.
gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2020-02-25 Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
PR go/18926
* gdb.go/methods.exp: Remove gcc/93866 xfail.
---
gdb/testsuite/gdb.go/methods.exp | 17 ++++++++---------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.go/methods.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.go/methods.exp
index b24ee14cf2..068212044c 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.go/methods.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.go/methods.exp
@@ -29,8 +29,7 @@ if { [prepare_for_testing "failed to prepare" ${testfile} ${srcfile} {debug go}]
}
set bp_location1 {main.T.Foo}
-set bp_location2 {main.(*T).Bar}
-set bp_location2_regexp {main.\(\*T\).Bar}
+set bp_location2 {main.T.Bar}
if { [go_runto_main] < 0 } {
untested "could not run to main"
@@ -49,7 +48,6 @@ gdb_test_multiple "maintenance print symbols" "" {
exp_continue
}
-re "^\r\n void main.T.Bar\[^\r\n\]*(?=\r\n)" {
- set found_wrong_bar 2
exp_continue
}
-re "\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
@@ -86,20 +84,21 @@ if { $found_wrong_bar == 1 } {
# <1><528>: Abbrev Number: 19 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
# <529> DW_AT_name : main.Bar.pN6_main.T
setup_xfail "*-*-*"
-} elseif { $found_wrong_bar == 2 } {
+} else {
# We have with gccgo-8/9/10:
# <1><6e4>: Abbrev Number: 24 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
# <6e5> DW_AT_name : main.Bar..1main.T
# <6ec> DW_AT_linkage_name: main.T.Bar
- # xfail for GCC PR93866
- setup_xfail "*-*-*"
-} else {
+
# For reference: with go1.11.13:
# <1><6c49a>: Abbrev Number: 2 (DW_TAG_subprogram)
# <6c49b> DW_AT_name : main.(*T).Bar
- }
+
+ # It has been clarified in PR gcc/93866 that it's ok that symbols names
+ # diverge between gc and gccgo. So, we accept the main.T.Bar as valid.
+}
if { [gdb_breakpoint ${bp_location2} message] } {
- gdb_test "cont" "Breakpoint .*, ${bp_location2_regexp}.*" \
+ gdb_test "cont" "Breakpoint .*, ${bp_location2}.*" \
"going to second breakpoint"
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-02-25 13:07 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-02-21 11:02 [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.go/methods.exp Tom de Vries
2020-02-21 14:54 ` Tom Tromey
2020-02-21 16:17 ` Tom de Vries
2020-02-21 18:36 ` Tom Tromey
2020-02-25 7:23 ` Tom de Vries
2020-02-25 7:24 ` Tom de Vries
2020-02-25 13:07 ` Tom Tromey
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox