This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 2/2] [PR symtab/17602] Fix arguments to symbol_name_cmp
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Andreas Arnez <arnez at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2014 07:57:34 -0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [PR symtab/17602] Fix arguments to symbol_name_cmp
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <yjt2mw7ewq2w dot fsf at ruffy dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <87k327ocu6 dot fsf at br87z6lw dot de dot ibm dot com>
On Thu, Dec 4, 2014 at 3:48 AM, Andreas Arnez <arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26 2014, Doug Evans wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/gdb/linespec.c b/gdb/linespec.c
>> index 5325702..35b0205 100644
>> --- a/gdb/linespec.c
>> +++ b/gdb/linespec.c
>> @@ -982,7 +982,12 @@ iterate_name_matcher (const char *name, void *d)
>> {
>> const struct symbol_matcher_data *data = d;
>>
>> - if (data->symbol_name_cmp (name, data->lookup_name) == 0)
>> + /* The order of arguments we pass to symbol_name_cmp is important as
>> + strcmp_iw, a typical value for symbol_name_cmp, only performs special
>> + processing of '(' to remove overload info on the first argument and not
>> + the second. The first argument is what the user provided, the second
>> + argument is what came from partial syms / .gdb_index. */
>> + if (data->symbol_name_cmp (data->lookup_name, name) == 0)
>> return 1; /* Expand this symbol's symbol table. */
>> return 0; /* Skip this symbol. */
>> }
>
> This seems to cause a regression for the Ada testcase "operator_bp.exp":
>
>> [...]
>> FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "+" (got interactive prompt)
>> FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "-" (got interactive prompt)
>> FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "*" (got interactive prompt)
>> FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "/" (got interactive prompt)
>> FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "mod" (got interactive prompt)
>> FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "rem" (got interactive prompt)
>> FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "**" (got interactive prompt)
>> [...]
>
> See https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-testers/2014-q4/msg00126.html
>
> The problem occurs like this:
>
> (gdb) break "+"
> Function ""+"" not defined.
> Make breakpoint pending on future shared library load? (y or [n]) n
> (gdb) FAIL: gdb.ada/operator_bp.exp: break "+" (got interactive prompt)
>
> When reverting the patch, the test succeeds again.
Yeah, found that last night.
The problem is ada-lang.c:wild_match takes arguments in the opposite
order of strcmp_iw.
Working on a patch.