This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] Make gdbserver work with filename-only binaries
On Wednesday, February 21 2018, Pedro Alves wrote:
> Hi Sergio,
>
> A few quick comments below.
Thanks, Pedro, and sorry for the delay in replying.
>> @@ -3539,6 +3564,13 @@ captured_main (int argc, char *argv[])
>> const char *selftest_filter = NULL;
>> #endif
>>
>> + current_directory = getcwd (NULL, 0);
>> + if (current_directory == NULL)
>> + {
>> + warning (_("%s: error finding working directory"),
>> + safe_strerror (errno));
>
> I think it's much more usual to put the strerror string at the
> end of the warning rather than at the beginning.
>
> I.e., something like:
>
> warning (_("Could not find working directory: %s"),
> safe_strerror (errno));
>
> See
>
> $ (cd gdb; git grep -3 "warning (" *.c | grep strerr -C 3)
>
> for example.
>
> From the ongoing discussion, it sounded like this hunk may change
> in the next iteration, but I thought I'd still comment as it
> may help with future patches.
The only change is s/warning/error/, but I can also change the message.
>> +# We only test things locally, and on native-gdbserver
>> +if { [is_remote target] || [is_remote host] || ![use_gdb_stub] } {
>> + return 0
>> +}
>
>
> I don't see why to restrict this to "only on native-gdbserver". The test
> is calling gdbserver_start etc. manually, so it should work when testing
> with any local board, I think? I.e., when testing with native or
> extended-remote too. For the latter, tests will usually call "disconnect".
As far as I have tested (and remember), extended-remote doesn't actually
start gdbserver by using the binary. Instead, it starts gdbserver
without a binary and relies on 'set remote exec-file'.
.... (fiddles with testcase) ....
Right, I managed to remove this restriction and now the tests runs and
passes on other target boards as well.
>> +
>> +if { [prepare_for_testing "failed to prepare" $testfile $srcfile debug] } {
>> + return -1
>> +}
>> +
>> +set target_exec [gdbserver_download_current_prog]
>> +set target_execname [file tail $target_exec]
>> +# We temporarily copy the file to our current directory
>> +file copy -force $target_exec [pwd]
>> +set res [gdbserver_start "" $target_execname]
>
> Please remind me -- is the current directory here usually
> the testcase's output dir? I.e., is it guaranteed that
> the current directory here is not going to be the same
> directory of another testcase running in parallel at
> the same time?
No, [pwd] is actually the gdb/testsuite/ directory, from where the
Makefile runs. Which means that other tests running in parallel at the
same time will have the same value for [pwd]. I copied the file to
[pwd] because that's how I solved the problem of having the binary at
the same directory as the one I'm starting gdbserver from.
Another solution that I thought was to cd into the the dirname of
the downloaded $target_exec, execute gdbserver from there, and the cd
back to the original directory. WDYT?
>> +
>> +set gdbserver_protocol [lindex $res 0]
>> +set gdbserver_gdbport [lindex $res 1]
>> +gdb_target_cmd $gdbserver_protocol $gdbserver_gdbport
>> +
>> +if { [runto_main] } {
>> + pass "load filename without absolute path"
>> +} else {
>> + fail "load filename without absolute path"
>> +}
>
> runto_main here looks a bit odd to me. You're manually connecting
> with gdb_target_cmd, bypassing whatever the current board file
> may want to do, but then you're using a routine that call back
> into the board file to do random things to prepare for running.
>
> I think you should set a breakpoint at main and continue to
> it without using runto_main. Note how no other test in gdb.server/
> uses runto_main.
Ah, OK. I'm usually confused about our testsuite when it comes to
remote vs. remote-extended, so thanks for the advice.
Thanks,
--
Sergio
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF 31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/