Re: GDB 6.8.92 available for testing

Re: GDB 6.8.92 available for testing

[Joel Brobecker]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 672 bytes --]

[switching to gcc-patches]

> Given that newer GCC versions get whinier and whinier and that we see
> false positives from time to time, I would be in favour of disabling
> -Werror for releases.

Makes sense to me. I've just committed the following patch on the branch,
after having re-built GDB on x86-linux, making sure that -Werror is no
longer used by default anymore. (this is the same patch than the one
I applied for GDB 6.6 by the way).

2009-10-01  Joel Brobecker  <brobecker@adacore.com>

        * configure.ac: Disable -Werror by default.
        * configure: Regenerate.

I'll update my release procedure/scripts to do the same for future
releases.

-- 
Joel

[-- Attachment #2: werror.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-diff, Size: 1200 bytes --]

Index: configure.ac
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/configure.ac,v
retrieving revision 1.106
diff -u -p -r1.106 configure.ac
--- configure.ac	10 Sep 2009 03:59:36 -0000	1.106
+++ configure.ac	1 Oct 2009 19:17:55 -0000
@@ -1510,11 +1510,6 @@ AC_ARG_ENABLE(werror,
      *) AC_MSG_ERROR(bad value ${enableval} for --enable-werror) ;;
    esac])
 
-# Enable -Werror by default when using gcc
-if test "${GCC}" = yes -a -z "${ERROR_ON_WARNING}" ; then
-    ERROR_ON_WARNING=yes
-fi
-
 WERROR_CFLAGS=""
 if test "${ERROR_ON_WARNING}" = yes ; then
     WERROR_CFLAGS="-Werror"
Index: configure
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/configure,v
retrieving revision 1.288
diff -u -p -r1.288 configure
--- configure	10 Sep 2009 03:59:37 -0000	1.288
+++ configure	1 Oct 2009 19:17:59 -0000
@@ -13067,11 +13067,6 @@ if test "${enable_werror+set}" = set; th
 fi
 
 
-# Enable -Werror by default when using gcc
-if test "${GCC}" = yes -a -z "${ERROR_ON_WARNING}" ; then
-    ERROR_ON_WARNING=yes
-fi
-
 WERROR_CFLAGS=""
 if test "${ERROR_ON_WARNING}" = yes ; then
     WERROR_CFLAGS="-Werror"

[RFA] more fixes to testsuite (was RE: GDB 6.8.92 available for testing)

[Pierre Muller]

  I here request approval 
for changes to the testsuite related to 
problems on a configuration where
gcc emits format warnings by default.

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : gdb-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-owner@sourceware.org] De la
> part de Joel Brobecker
> Envoyé : Thursday, October 01, 2009 7:29 PM
> À : Pierre Muller
> Cc : gdb@sourceware.org
> Objet : Re: GDB 6.8.92 available for testing
> 
> > 3) gdb.base/shr1.c (wrong format arg type)
> > 3) is about an address, but "%p" does not seem to be supported by all
> > C lib format implementation, so I don't know if this can be fixed
> correctly.
> 
> We already use %p in a couple of testcase, so let's use it again here.
> Best to avoid printing stuff on stdout/stderr when writing a testcase,
> as we don't always have access to the inferior output (for instance,
> when doing remote debugging), so matching the inferior output in the
> testcase won't work in those case.  But we'd have to dig deeper in
> the history of this testcase to determine whether removing the printf
> would not impact the effectiveness of the testcase.

 I used "%p" as suggested.
  
> For now, I vote for a group hug and the use of %p.
> 
> > 4) gdb.base/unload.c (format arg not literal)
> > 5) gdb.base/watchpoint-solib.c (format arg not literal)
> > 4) and 5) seem more difficult ...
> 
> Is that the source of the problem?
> 
>         fprintf (stderr, dlerror ());
> 
> The following should take care of it:
> 
>         fprintf (stderr, "%s", dlerror ())
> 
> --
> Joel
 This was a bit more tricky, because
dlerror is a macro if __WIN32__
is defined, 
  I removed the macro and
separated the fprintf.

Is this OK?

 
Tested on gcc16, no changes in the results of these tests.

PS: the #ifdef __WIN32__
should probably be replaced by 
something that is also defined for
64-bit windows, no?


2009-10-01  Pierre Muller  <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>

	* src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/shr1.c: Use %p in format string.
	* src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/unload.c: Avoid warning in fprintf.
	* src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint-solib.c: Idem.

Index: src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/shr1.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/shr1.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1.1.2
diff -u -p -r1.1.1.2 shr1.c
--- src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/shr1.c	28 Jun 1999 16:04:00 -0000
1.1.1.2
+++ src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/shr1.c	1 Oct 2009 20:58:06 -0000
@@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ int x;
   sg = 6.6;
   sgi++;
   sgs = 8;
-  printf("address of sgs is 0x%x\n", &sgs);
+  printf("address of sgs is %p\n", &sgs);
   return 2*x;
 }
 
Index: src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/unload.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/unload.c,v
retrieving revision 1.9
diff -u -p -r1.9 unload.c
--- src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/unload.c	3 Jan 2009 05:58:03 -0000	1.9
+++ src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/unload.c	1 Oct 2009 20:58:06 -0000
@@ -27,7 +27,6 @@
 # define dlsym(handle, func) GetProcAddress (handle, func)
 #endif
 #define dlclose(handle) FreeLibrary (handle)
-#define dlerror() "error %d occurred", GetLastError ()
 #else
 #include <dlfcn.h>
 #endif
@@ -53,7 +52,11 @@ int main()
 
   if (!unloadshr)
     {
-      fprintf (stderr, dlerror ());
+#ifdef __WIN32__
+      fprintf (stderr, "error %d occurred", GetLastError ());
+#else
+      fprintf (stderr, "%s", dlerror ());
+#endif
       exit (1);
     }
 
Index: src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint-solib.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint-solib.c,v
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.2 watchpoint-solib.c
--- src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint-solib.c	3 Jan 2009 05:58:03
-0000	1.2
+++ src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint-solib.c	1 Oct 2009 20:58:06
-0000
@@ -27,7 +27,6 @@
 # define dlsym(handle, func) GetProcAddress (handle, func)
 #endif
 #define dlclose(handle) FreeLibrary (handle)
-#define dlerror() "error %d occurred", GetLastError ()
 #else
 #include <dlfcn.h>
 #endif
@@ -42,7 +41,11 @@ void open_shlib ()
   
   if (!handle)
     {
-      fprintf (stderr, dlerror ());
+#ifdef __WIN32__
+      fprintf (stderr, "error %d occurred", GetLastError ());
+#else
+      fprintf (stderr, "%s", dlerror ());
+#endif
       exit (1);
     }
 

Re: [RFA] more fixes to testsuite (was RE: GDB 6.8.92 available for testing)

[Joel Brobecker]

> PS: the #ifdef __WIN32__
> should probably be replaced by 
> something that is also defined for
> 64-bit windows, no?

We're "lucky" in this case, because __WIN32__ happens to be defined
on Windows64.

> 2009-10-01  Pierre Muller  <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
> 
> 	* src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/shr1.c: Use %p in format string.
> 	* src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/unload.c: Avoid warning in fprintf.
> 	* src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/watchpoint-solib.c: Idem.

I think it would have been simpler to defile a dlerror *function*
that returns a string, but this is fine too.

-- 
Joel

Re: GDB 6.8.92 available for testing

[Jan Kratochvil]

On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:39:40 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:
[...]
> Jan> 	[patch] Fix --with-system-readline vs. readline-6.0+
> Jan> 	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-07/msg00755.html
[...]
> This patch is ok.

Checked-in:
	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2009-10/msg00011.html


Thanks,
Jan

Fix --with-system-readline vs. readline-6.0+ - gdb-7.0? [Re: GDB 6.8.92 available for testing]

[Jan Kratochvil]

On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 19:25:41 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:39:40 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote:
> > >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:
> [...]
> > Jan> 	[patch] Fix --with-system-readline vs. readline-6.0+
> > Jan> 	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-07/msg00755.html
> [...]
> > This patch is ok.
> 
> Checked-in:
> 	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2009-10/msg00011.html

Forgot to ask if it should go for gdb-7.0.


Jan

Re: Fix --with-system-readline vs. readline-6.0+ - gdb-7.0? [Re: GDB 6.8.92 available for testing]

[Tom Tromey]

Jan> Forgot to ask if it should go for gdb-7.0.

I'll defer to Joel's judgment.

Tom

Re: Fix --with-system-readline vs. readline-6.0+ - gdb-7.0? [Re: GDB 6.8.92 available for testing]

[Joel Brobecker]

> > > >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:
> > [...]
> > > Jan> 	[patch] Fix --with-system-readline vs. readline-6.0+
> > > Jan> 	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-07/msg00755.html
> > [...]
> > > This patch is ok.
> > 
> > Checked-in:
> > 	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-cvs/2009-10/msg00011.html
> 
> Forgot to ask if it should go for gdb-7.0.

As discussed with Tom on IRC, our understanding is that this is not
a critical bug, and therefore is not needed on the branch.

-- 
Joel