From: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Fix nested gdb_caching_proc with args; Fix gdb.rocm/ tests
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2025 11:56:44 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <f22a2381-e101-458b-b616-02161b293ac9@palves.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f4cb77da-303e-4d79-ba32-89e51cd4c713@palves.net>
On 2025-09-16 10:31, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 2025-09-15 22:54, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> I should have mentioned something here:
>>
>> On 2025-09-15 22:28, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>
>>> --- a/gdb/testsuite/lib/cache.exp
>>> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/lib/cache.exp
>>> @@ -24,26 +24,9 @@ proc ignore_pass { msg } {
>>>
>>> # Call proc real_name and return the result, while ignoring calls to pass.
>>> proc gdb_do_cache_wrap {real_name args} {
>>> - if { [info procs save_pass] != "" } {
>>> - return [uplevel 2 $real_name]
>>> + with_override pass ignore_pass {
>>> + return [$real_name {*}$args]
>>> }
>>
>> The previous code was using "uplevel 2" here. But I'm struggling to see why that is the
>> right level.
>>
>> When gdb_do_cache_wrap is called via gdb_caching_proc => gdb_do_cache, that takes us to the scope of
>> the caller of the gdb_caching_proc, which off hand would seem right.
>>
>> However, when gdb_do_cache_wrap is called directly by gdb.testsuite/gdb-caching-proc-consistency.exp, it
>> takes us to ... the caller of test_proc?
>>
>> So I'm wondering, what could we possibly want to reference from a higher level in gdb_do_cache_wrap
>> that not having the uplevel in gdb_do_cache_wrap would get wrong? A caching proc IMO shouldn't be doing
>> something like taking the name of a variable as argument instead of a value, as then the procedure wouldn't
>> be guaranteed to be idempotent? So I dropped the uplevel, and found that that doesn't cause any
>> testsuite regression. But maybe I'm missing something. If I am, it'd be nice to add a testcase for it.
>
> I guess that is sort of a tangent. I should preserve the uplevel so that the patch does just one thing.
> A change to that detail can always be done separately.
>
> Here's a new version of the patch without that change. With that out of the way, this patch should be a
> lot more obvious.
>
> I'd like to merge it soon to unbreak the gdb.rocm/ tests.
I noticed now that while a full test run did not expose this issue, which explains why I didn't see it
originally, I'm able to trigger this with tests other than gdb.rocm/, as long as you run them in
isolation, so that the cache is cold for the nested procs. For example,
make check TESTS="gdb.base/attach.exp"
triggers it too.
I'm going ahead and merging it, to minimize disturbances to everyone, with the adjusted commit log below.
=== 8< ===
From 2e7ea115f4bddcd7d3f81e0e9026b76fef4d4253 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2025 22:12:28 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] Fix nested gdb_caching_proc with args
Commit d09eba07 ("Make get_compiler_info use gdb_caching_proc")
regressed some tests when you run them in isolation (as this depends
on the order the gdb_caching_proc procs' results are cached).
E.g.:
Running /home/pedro/rocm/gdb/build/gdb/testsuite/../../../src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.rocm/simple.exp ...
ERROR: tcl error sourcing /home/pedro/rocm/gdb/build/gdb/testsuite/../../../src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.rocm/simple.exp.
ERROR: tcl error code TCL WRONGARGS
ERROR: wrong # args: should be "gdb_real__get_compiler_info_1 language"
while executing
"gdb_real__get_compiler_info_1"
("uplevel" body line 1)
invoked from within
"uplevel 2 $real_name"
(procedure "gdb_do_cache_wrap" line 3)
invoked from within
"gdb_do_cache_wrap $real_name {*}$args"
(procedure "gdb_do_cache" line 98)
invoked from within
gdb.base/attach.exp triggers it too, for example.
This is actually a latent problem in gdb_do_cache_wrap, introduced in:
commit 71f1ab80f1aabd70bce526635f84c7b849e8a0f4
CommitDate: Mon Mar 6 16:49:19 2023 +0100
[gdb/testsuite] Allow args in gdb_caching_proc
This change:
# Call proc real_name and return the result, while ignoring calls to pass.
-proc gdb_do_cache_wrap {real_name} {
+proc gdb_do_cache_wrap {real_name args} {
if { [info procs save_pass] != "" } {
return [uplevel 2 $real_name] <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< HERE
}
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ proc gdb_do_cache_wrap {real_name} {
rename pass save_pass
rename ignore_pass pass
- set code [catch {uplevel 2 $real_name} result]
+ set code [catch {uplevel 2 [list $real_name {*}$args]} result]
Missed updating the line marked with HERE above, to pass down $args.
So the case of a caching proc calling another caching proc with args
isn't handled correctly.
We could fix this by fixing the HERE line like so:
- return [uplevel 2 $real_name]
+ return [uplevel 2 [list $real_name {*}$args]]
However, we have with_override nowadays that we can use here which
eliminates the duplicated logic, which was what was missed originally.
A new test that exposes the problem is added to
gdb.testsuite/gdb-caching-proc.exp.
This also adds a new test to gdb.testsuite/with-override.exp that I
think was missing, making sure that the inner foo override restores
the outer foo override.
Tested-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com>
Change-Id: I8b2a7366bf910902fe5f547bde58c3b475bf5133
---
.../gdb.testsuite/gdb-caching-proc.exp | 21 +++++++++++++------
gdb/testsuite/gdb.testsuite/with-override.exp | 4 ++++
gdb/testsuite/lib/cache.exp | 21 ++-----------------
3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.testsuite/gdb-caching-proc.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.testsuite/gdb-caching-proc.exp
index f9610afd076..6b46b1c555a 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.testsuite/gdb-caching-proc.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.testsuite/gdb-caching-proc.exp
@@ -22,23 +22,32 @@ gdb_caching_proc gdb_testsuite_gdb_caching_proc_exp_arg { arg } {
return $arg
}
+gdb_caching_proc gdb_testsuite_gdb_caching_proc_exp_arg_nested { arg } {
+ incr ::count
+ return [gdb_testsuite_gdb_caching_proc_exp_arg $arg]
+}
+
+# List of "expected $::count after running expression" and
+# "expression".
set assertions {
- { [gdb_testsuite_gdb_caching_proc_exp_noarg] == 1 }
- { [gdb_testsuite_gdb_caching_proc_exp_arg 1] == 1 }
- { [gdb_testsuite_gdb_caching_proc_exp_arg "foo foo"] == "foo foo" }
+ 1 { [gdb_testsuite_gdb_caching_proc_exp_noarg] == 1 }
+ 1 { [gdb_testsuite_gdb_caching_proc_exp_arg 1] == 1 }
+ 1 { [gdb_testsuite_gdb_caching_proc_exp_arg "foo foo"] == "foo foo" }
+ 1 { [gdb_testsuite_gdb_caching_proc_exp_arg_nested "foo foo"] == "foo foo" }
+ 2 { [gdb_testsuite_gdb_caching_proc_exp_arg_nested "bar bar"] == "bar bar" }
}
set assertion_nr 0
-foreach assertion $assertions {
+foreach {expected_count assertion} $assertions {
with_test_prefix $assertion_nr {
set ::count 0
gdb_assert $assertion
- gdb_assert { $::count == 1 }
+ gdb_assert { $::count == $expected_count }
with_test_prefix cached {
gdb_assert $assertion
- gdb_assert { $::count == 1 }
+ gdb_assert { $::count == $expected_count }
}
}
incr assertion_nr
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.testsuite/with-override.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.testsuite/with-override.exp
index 1a4ee6adbbb..2a316f904e4 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.testsuite/with-override.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.testsuite/with-override.exp
@@ -42,6 +42,10 @@ with_test_prefix no-args {
gdb_assert { [foo] == 2 }
}
}
+
+ with_test_prefix "foo1 again" {
+ gdb_assert { [foo] == 1 }
+ }
}
with_test_prefix after {
diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/lib/cache.exp b/gdb/testsuite/lib/cache.exp
index 6ca3f183f9f..4ebb8259957 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/lib/cache.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/lib/cache.exp
@@ -24,26 +24,9 @@ proc ignore_pass { msg } {
# Call proc real_name and return the result, while ignoring calls to pass.
proc gdb_do_cache_wrap {real_name args} {
- if { [info procs save_pass] != "" } {
- return [uplevel 2 $real_name]
+ with_override pass ignore_pass {
+ return [uplevel 2 [list $real_name {*}$args]]
}
-
- rename pass save_pass
- rename ignore_pass pass
-
- set code [catch {uplevel 2 [list $real_name {*}$args]} result]
-
- rename pass ignore_pass
- rename save_pass pass
-
- if {$code == 1} {
- global errorInfo errorCode
- return -code error -errorinfo $errorInfo -errorcode $errorCode $result
- } elseif {$code > 1} {
- return -code $code $result
- }
-
- return $result
}
# Global written to by gdb_exit_called proc. Is set to true to
base-commit: d09eba07ca013e6b95eeafd67d79c32ebf6f28eb
--
2.51.0
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-09-16 10:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-09-15 21:28 [PATCH] " Pedro Alves
2025-09-15 21:54 ` Pedro Alves
2025-09-15 23:57 ` [PATCH] Make gdb_caching_proc support namespaces Pedro Alves
2025-09-16 3:55 ` Simon Marchi
2025-09-16 9:31 ` [PATCH v2] Fix nested gdb_caching_proc with args; Fix gdb.rocm/ tests Pedro Alves
2025-09-16 10:56 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
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=f22a2381-e101-458b-b616-02161b293ac9@palves.net \
--to=pedro@palves.net \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
/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