Re: [PATCH] Tweak gdb.base/async.exp

[Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>]

On 06/06/2014 08:44 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
> I see two fails in async.exp on arm-none-eabi target:
> 
> nexti&^M
> (gdb) 0x000001ba        14       x = 5; x = 5;^M
> completed.^M
> FAIL: gdb.base/async.exp: nexti&
> finish&^M
> Run till exit from #0  0x000001ba in foo () at /scratch/yqi/arm-none-eabi-lite/src/gdb-trunk/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/async.c:14^M
> (gdb) 0x000001e6 in main () at /scratch/yqi/arm-none-eabi-lite/src/gdb-trunk/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/async.c:32^M
> 32       y = foo ();^M
> Value returned is $1 = 8^M
> completed.^M
> FAIL: gdb.base/async.exp: finish&
> 
> The corresponding test is "test_background "nexti&" "" ".*y = 3.*"",
> and it assumes that GDB "nexti" into the next source line.  It is wrong
> on arm.  After "nexti", it still stops at the same source line, and it
> fails.

Note: "nexti" is supposed to skip function calls, but the test
isn't actually testing that works.  It'd be nice if it
did.  E.g., we'd add:

for (i = 0; i < 2; i++)
  foo ();

and "stepi" the first loop iteration looking for the
first address that has a "backtrace" with two frames.  The
"call/jmp" instruction that nexti& should step over would
be the address the program was stopped before the last
stepi.  We'd run to the address again (for the second iteration),
and do a "nexti&", making sure we land on the next
instruction, after the call returns.

But TBC, since the test doesn't do this today, it's fine to
fix it assuming nexti is just like stepi.  With in mind ...

> +# We may nexti into the same source line or into the next source line.
> +# In the former case, the current PC is printed out.  We match either
> +# of them.
> +test_background "nexti&" "" ".*( 0x0*$next_insn_addr|y = 3).*"

I'd rather always only check by address.  It's simpler and it'd
prevent a bug where we should still end on the same line, like
on ARM, but nexti steps too much and only stops on the
next line.

I think we just need to do:

- x = 5; x = 5;
+ x = 5; x = 5; x = 5;

in the C file?  'x' is volatile, so that'd always makes us land
in the middle of the line.

> +# The PC address is displayed if PC is in the middle of a source line.
>  test_background "finish&" \
> -    "Run till exit from #0  foo \\(\\) at.*async.c.*\r\n" \
> +    "Run till exit from #0  ($hex in )?foo \\(\\) at.*async.c.*\r\n" \

This can then be unconditional too.

>      ".*$hex in main \\(\\) at.*async.c.*y = foo \\(\\).*Value returned is.*= 8.*"
>  
>  set jump_here [gdb_get_line_number "jump here"]

-- 
Pedro Alves