From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 125386 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2017 17:16:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 123839 invoked by uid 89); 25 Jul 2017 17:16:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy=qiyao X-HELO: camailhost.cavium.com Received: from camailhost.cavium.com (HELO camailhost.cavium.com) (12.108.191.230) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 17:16:47 +0000 Received: from sellcey-dt.caveonetworks.com ([10.18.104.136]) by camailhost.cavium.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id v6PHGiL7002307 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:16:44 -0700 Received: from sellcey-dt.caveonetworks.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sellcey-dt.caveonetworks.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3) with ESMTP id v6PHGiik018081 for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:16:44 -0700 Received: (from sellcey@localhost) by sellcey-dt.caveonetworks.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id v6PHGibc018080; Tue, 25 Jul 2017 10:16:44 -0700 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2017 17:16:00 -0000 From: Steve Ellcey Message-Id: <201707251716.v6PHGibc018080@sellcey-dt.caveonetworks.com> To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: aarch64 gdb failures in testsuite Reply-To: sellcey@cavium.com X-SW-Source: 2017-07/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2 I am getting some aarch64 gdb failures that do not seem to be showing up in other peoples test runs from the gdb-testers mailing list and I was wondering if anyone could help me figure out why these tests are failing for me. As an example, here is gdb.base/store.exp. In my test case I am getting this failuire: Temporary breakpoint 9, wack_doublest (u=-1, v=-2) at /home/sellcey/gdb-std/src/binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.c:125 125 register doublest l = u, r = v; (gdb) next 126 l = add_doublest (l, r); (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/store.exp: continue to wack_doublest print l $29 = -1 (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/store.exp: var doublest l; print old l, expecting -1 print r $30 = (gdb) FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: var doublest l; print old r, expecting -2 set variable l = 4 But when I look at https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-testers/2017-q3/msg01016.html and look at the gdb.log file I see it passes there: Temporary breakpoint 9, wack_doublest (u=-1, v=-2) at /home/qiyao/buildbot/ubuntu-aarch64-m64/build/gdb/testsuite/../../../binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.c:125 125 register doublest l = u, r = v; (gdb) next 126 l = add_doublest (l, r); (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/store.exp: continue to wack_doublest print l $29 = -1 (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/store.exp: var doublest l; print old l, expecting -1 print r $30 = -2 (gdb) PASS: gdb.base/store.exp: var doublest l; print old r, expecting -2 set variable l = 4 In looking for differences in the runs I see the passing test uses GCC 4.8.4 and I am using GCC 5.4.0 (Ubuntu 16.04). I don't think that should make a difference but maybe it does. I looked at the compiler options since for something to be I assume we would have to be compiling with some optimization option but both compilers are just using -g. spawn -ignore SIGHUP gcc /home/sellcey/gdb-std/obj/binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/outputs/gdb.base/store/store0.o -g -lm -o /home/sellcey/gdb-std/obj/binutils-gdb/gdb/testsuite/outputs/gdb.base/store/store I compiled the test case (gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.c) with -g using the system GCC (5.4.0) and then ran the system GDB on it to see what happened there and I get the same message there that I do with the latest GDB sources. % gcc -g store.c -o x % gdb x (gdb) b wack_doublest Breakpoint 1 at 0x4008cc: file store.c, line 125. (gdb) r Starting program: /home/sellcey/gdb-std/x Breakpoint 1, wack_doublest (u=-1, v=-2) at store.c:125 125 register doublest l = u, r = v; (gdb) n 126 l = add_doublest (l, r); (gdb) print l $1 = -1 (gdb) print r $2 = Any ideas on what is happening here? Does anyone else get this failure? Steve Ellcey sellcey@cavium.com