File gdb-testsuite-fix-gdb.cp-m-static.exp-regressio... of Package gdb

Overview Repositories Revisions Requests Users Attributes Meta

File gdb-testsuite-fix-gdb.cp-m-static.exp-regression-on-.patch of Package gdb (Revision 85a0e880c9f0fd08bf6dffd323d0c929)

Currently displaying revision 85a0e880c9f0fd08bf6dffd323d0c929 , Show latest

From 424c96685651cc949597d700811a5fbb15256d1d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2023 09:18:07 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 06/12] [gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.cp/m-static.exp regression on
 Ubuntu 20.04

In commit 722c4596034 ("[gdb/testsuite] Fix gdb.cp/*.exp for remote host"), I
needed to change ".*/" into "(.*/)?" in:
...
gdb_test "info variable everywhere" \
    "File .*/m-static\[.\]h.*const int gnu_obj_4::everywhere;"
...

However, due to the fact that I got this output:
...
(gdb) info variable everywhere^M
All variables matching regular expression "everywhere":^M
^M
File /data/vries/gdb/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/m-static.h:^M
8:      const int gnu_obj_4::everywhere;^M
^M
File /data/vries/gdb/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/m-static1.cc:^M
8:      const int gnu_obj_4::everywhere;^M
...
I decided to make the matching somewhat stricter, to make sure that the two
matched lines were subsequent.

The commit turned out to be more strict than intended, and caused a regression
on Ubuntu 20.04, where the output was instead:
...
(gdb) info variable everywhere^M
All variables matching regular expression "everywhere":^M
^M
File /data/vries/gdb/src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/m-static.h:^M
8:      const int gnu_obj_4::everywhere;^M
...

At that point I realized I'm looking at a bug (filed as PR symtab/30265),
which manifests on openSUSE Leap 15.4 for native and readnow, and on Ubuntu
20.04 for readnow, but not for native.

Before my commit, the test-case passed whether the bug manifested or not.

After my commit, the test-case only passed when the bug manifested.

Fix the test-case regression by reverting to the situation before the commit:
pass whether the bug manifests or not.  We could add an xfail for the PR, but
I'm expecting a fix soon, so that doesn't look worth the effort.

Tested on x86_64-linux, both on openSUSE Leap 15.4 and Ubuntu 20.04, both with
native and readnow.

Reported-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com>
---
 gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/m-static.exp | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/m-static.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/m-static.exp
index 97a5645b53a..a67b4cd3736 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/m-static.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.cp/m-static.exp
@@ -181,7 +181,10 @@ gdb_test "print test4.somewhere" "\\$\[0-9\].* = 3.14\[0-9\]*" "static const flo
 
 # Also make sure static const members can be found via "info var".
 if { $non_dwarf } { setup_xfail *-*-* }
-gdb_test "info variable everywhere" "File .*/m-static\[.\]h.*const int gnu_obj_4::everywhere;"
+gdb_test "info variable everywhere" \
+    [multi_line \
+	 "File (.*/)?m-static\[.\]h:" \
+	 "$decimal:\tconst int gnu_obj_4::everywhere;.*"]
 
 # Perhaps at some point test4 should also include a test for a static
 # const int that was initialized in the header file.  But I'm not sure
-- 
2.35.3

Places

File gdb-testsuite-fix-gdb.cp-m-static.exp-regression-on-.patch of Package gdb (Revision 85a0e880c9f0fd08bf6dffd323d0c929)

Places