This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 2/2] Documentation and testcase
- From: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: GDB Patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 17:08:43 -0400
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Documentation and testcase
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1426807358-18295-1-git-send-email-sergiodj at redhat dot com> <1426807358-18295-3-git-send-email-sergiodj at redhat dot com> <550C7905 dot 9090501 at redhat dot com> <87mw37wfd6 dot fsf at redhat dot com> <550C9A7C dot 90705 at redhat dot com> <87wq283gmx dot fsf at redhat dot com> <5510773D dot 4010107 at redhat dot com>
On Monday, March 23 2015, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 03/22/2015 08:45 PM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
>
>> +# We do not do file-backed mappings in the test program, but it is
>> +# important to test this anyway. One way of performing the test is to
>> +# load GDB with a corefile but without a binary, and then ask for the
>> +# disassemble of a function (i.e., the binary's .text section). GDB
>> +# should fail in this case. However, it must succeed if the binary is
>> +# provided along with the corefile. This is what we test here.
>
> It seems like we now just miss the case of corefilter that _does_ request
> that the file backed regions are dumped. In that case, disassembly
> should work without the binary. Could you add that too, please? We
> can e.g., pass a boolean parameter to test_disasm to specify whether
> to expect that disassembly works without a program file.
Hm, I'm afraid there's a bit of confusion here, at least from my part.
I am already testing the case when we use a value that requests that
file-backed regions are dumped. If you take a look at the
"all_anon_corefiles" list, you will see that the each corefile generated
there includes everything *except* for the specific type of mapping we
want to ignore (thus the "non_*" names). And the result of this test is
that GDB cannot disassemble a function without a binary, even if all the
file-backed pages have been dumped.
Having said that, I made a test with git HEAD without my patch. I
generated a corefile for the same test program, and then loaded only the
corefile:
$ ./gdb -q -ex 'core ./core.31118' -ex 'disas 0x4007cb'
...
Program terminated with signal SIGTRAP, Trace/breakpoint trap.
#0 0x0000000000400905 in ?? ()
No function contains specified address.
(gdb)
Which means that, even without my patch, GDB still cannot disassemble a
function without the binary.
FWIW, I did the same test, but this time using a corefile generated by
the Linux kernel (and with all bits set on coredump_filter), and the
results were the same.
>> +
>> +proc test_disasm { core address } {
>> + global testfile
>> +
>> + # Restarting GDB without loading the binary
>> + gdb_exit
>> + gdb_start
>> +
>> + set core_loaded [gdb_core_cmd "$core" "load core"]
>> + if { $core_loaded == -1 } {
>> + fail "loading $core"
>> + return
>> + }
>> +
>> + gdb_test "disassemble $address" "No function contains specified address." \
>> + "disassemble function with corefile and without a binary"
>> +
>> + clean_restart $testfile
>> +
>> + set core_loaded [gdb_core_cmd "$core" "load core"]
>> + if { $core_loaded == -1 } {
>> + fail "loading $core"
>> + return
>> + }
>> +
>> + gdb_test "disassemble $address" "Dump of assembler code for function.*" \
>> + "disassemble function with corefile and with a binary"
>
> Looks like there are duplicate test messages here, in the
> cases clean_restart, gdb_core_cmd, etc. fail. You can fix that
> with e.g.:
>
> with_test_prefix "no binary" {
> # Restart GDB without loading the binary.
> gdb_exit
> gdb_start
>
> set core_loaded [gdb_core_cmd "$core" "load core"]
> if { $core_loaded == -1 } {
> fail "load $core"
> return
> }
>
> gdb_test "disassemble $address" "No function contains specified address." \
> "disassemble function"
> }
>
> with_test_prefix "with binary" {
> clean_restart $testfile
>
> set core_loaded [gdb_core_cmd "$core" "load core"]
> if { $core_loaded == -1 } {
> fail "load $core"
> return
> }
>
> gdb_test "disassemble $address" "No function contains specified address." \
> "disassemble function"
> }
Thanks, fixed.
>> +# Getting the inferior's PID
>
> "Get". Period at end.
Fixed.
>> +set infpid ""
>> +gdb_test_multiple "info inferiors" "getting inferior pid" {
>> + -re "process \($decimal\).*\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
>> + set infpid $expect_out(1,string)
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> +# Get the main function's address
>
> Period.
Fixed.
> (I saw a few other similar gerund uses in the file which
> read a bit odd to me, but I didn't point them all out.)
I removed all of them, and also added missing periods all over. Thanks.
> This is OK with the missing test added.
I'll wait until you clarify that comment above :-). I won't resubmit
the patch now because it only contains fixes to comments.
> Thanks for the patience and for working on this.
Thank you!
--
Sergio
GPG key ID: 0x65FC5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/