[PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Allow some tests in gdb.base/store.exp to be unsupported

[Tom de Vries <tdevries at suse dot de>]

[ was: Re: [PATCH][gdb/testsuite] Rewrite gdb.base/store.exp into .s test ]

On 29-08-19 20:07, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> * Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de> [2019-08-29 19:47:12 +0200]:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> The test-case gdb.base/store.exp fails with gcc 7.4.0:
>> ...
>> nr of unexpected failures        27
>> ...
>> and with gcc 4.8.5:
>> ...
>> nr of unexpected failures        9
>> ...
>>
>> The test-case relies on "the compiler taking heed of requests for values to be
>> stored in registers", which appearantly isn't the case anymore for
>> modern gcc.
> 
> Could you expand on this a little more.  I took a quick look and it
> appears more that variables just have missing location information.

You're right, I jumped to a conclusion here, sorry for not being more
careful.

> Sure the test marks the variables with the 'register' keyword, but
> surely GDB should still pass the test even if the variable is placed
> on the stack?
> 

Agreed (and indeed, not obeing the 'register' hint, emulated by "#define
register" makes the test pass).

>>
>> Fix this by changing this into an assembly file test-case, and generating the
>> assembly file using gcc 4.2.1.
>>
>> Tested on x86_64-linux.
>>
>> OK for trunk?
> 
> No.  What about architectures other than x86-64?
> 
> I took a quick look, and maybe I missed something, but I don't think
> that there are any architecture specific assembler tests in gdb.base/
> and I don't think we should be adding any.
> 
> Maybe we should add a version of this test into gdb.arch along with
> the assembler file for x86-64.
> 
> On a slightly different note, I've run into this test before, and I'm
> pretty sure that the test is broken, it's been a while since I dug
> into this but consider these snippets:
> 
>     ...
> 
>     float
>     add_float (register float u, register float v)
>     {
>       return u + v;
>     }
> 
>     ...
> 
>     wack_float (register float u, register float v)
>     {
>       register float l = u, r = v;
>       l = add_float (l, r);
>       return l + r;
>     }
> 
>     ...
> 
> Part of the test involves breaking on 'add_float' then going 'up' to
> 'wack_float' and printing 'l'.  GDB expects an answer.
> 
> My problem with this is that on many architectures, even at
> optimisation level 0 'l' is dead, or at least non-recoverable at the
> point of the call to add_float due to being placed in a caller saved
> argument register.
> 

I've investigated the FAILs related to the wack_float function, and the
test-case expects to access and modify l, but it can't because there's
no DW_AT_location for l, which AFAIU is valid behaviour of gcc for a
register variable at -O0.

So, ISTM the FAILs need to be fixed by marking the failing tests as
unsupported, in case l shows up as <optimized out>.

> Anyway, I agree with you that this test is in need of some clean up,
> I'm just not convinced on this approach yet.
> 

Better like this?

Thanks,
- Tom

[gdb/testsuite] Allow some tests in gdb.base/store.exp to be unsupported

The test-case gdb.base/store.exp fails with gcc 7.4.0:
...
nr of unexpected failures        27
...

The first FAIL:
...
110       l = add_float (l, r);
(gdb) PASS: gdb.base/store.exp: continue to wack_float
print l
$21 = <optimized out>
FAIL: gdb.base/store.exp: var float l; print old l, expecting -1
...
relates to this bit in the test-case (compiled at -O0):
...
   106  float
   107  wack_float (register float u, register float v)
   108  {
   109    register float l = u, r = v;
   110    l = add_float (l, r);
   111    return l + r;
   112  }
...
and it expects to be able to read and modify variable l before executing line
110, but it already fails to read the value, because l has no DW_AT_location
attribute in the debug info.

Variable l is declared with the register keyword, and GCC implements the
register keyword at -O0 like so:
...
the compiler allocates distinct stack memory for all variables that do not
have the register storage-class specifier; if register is specified, the
variable may have a shorter lifespan than the code would indicate and may
never be placed in memory.
...

The fact that l has no DW_AT_location attribute, matches with the documented
"variable may have a shorter lifespan that code would indicate", (though it
is the most extreme case of it) so the gcc behaviour is valid.  We can of
course improve gcc to generate better debuginfo (filed gcc PR91611), but
this not a wrong-debug problem.

[ The test-case passes with gcc 4.2.1, but for the failing test discussed
above, it passes simply because it doesn't store l in a register. ]

With the debug info missing for l, reading and setting l is unsupported, so
fix the FAIL by marking the test UNSUPPORTED instead.

Tested on x86_64-linux.

gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:

2019-08-29  Tom de Vries  <tdevries@suse.de>

	* gdb.base/store.exp: Allow register variables to be optimized out at
	-O0.

---
 gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.exp | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.exp
index c5a7584101..9c19ce15a7 100644
--- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.exp
+++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/store.exp
@@ -55,18 +55,29 @@ proc check_set { t l r new add } {
 	}
     }
 
-    gdb_test "print l" " = ${l}" \
-	"${prefix}; print old l, expecting ${l}"
-    gdb_test "print r" " = ${r}" \
-	"${prefix}; print old r, expecting ${r}"
-    gdb_test_no_output "set variable l = 4" \
-	"${prefix}; setting l to 4"
-    gdb_test "print l" " = ${new}" \
-	"${prefix}; print new l, expecting ${new}"
-    gdb_test "next" "return l \\+ r;" \
-	"${prefix}; next over add call"
-    gdb_test "print l" " = ${add}" \
-	"${prefix}; print incremented l, expecting ${add}"
+    set supported 1
+    set test "${prefix}; print old l, expecting ${l}"
+    gdb_test_multiple "print l" "$test"  {
+	-re " = <optimized out>\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    unsupported $test
+	    set supported 0
+	}
+	-re " = ${l}\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    pass $test
+	}
+    }
+    if { $supported } {
+	gdb_test "print r" " = ${r}" \
+	    "${prefix}; print old r, expecting ${r}"
+	gdb_test_no_output "set variable l = 4" \
+	    "${prefix}; setting l to 4"
+	gdb_test "print l" " = ${new}" \
+	    "${prefix}; print new l, expecting ${new}"
+	gdb_test "next" "return l \\+ r;" \
+	    "${prefix}; next over add call"
+	gdb_test "print l" " = ${add}" \
+	    "${prefix}; print incremented l, expecting ${add}"
+    }
 }
 
 check_set "charest" "-1 .*" "-2 .*" "4 ..004." "2 ..002."
@@ -81,20 +92,34 @@ check_set "doublest" "-1" "-2" "4" "2"
 #
 
 proc up_set { t l r new } {
+    global gdb_prompt
+
     set prefix "upvar ${t} l"
     gdb_test "tbreak add_${t}"
     gdb_test "continue" "return u . v;" \
 	"continue to add_${t}"
     gdb_test "up" "l = add_${t} .l, r.;" \
 	"${prefix}; up"
-    gdb_test "print l" " = ${l}" \
-	"${prefix}; print old l, expecting ${l}"
-    gdb_test "print r" " = ${r}" \
-	"${prefix}; print old r, expecting ${r}"
-    gdb_test_no_output "set variable l = 4" \
-	"${prefix}; set l to 4"
-    gdb_test "print l" " = ${new}" \
-	"${prefix}; print new l, expecting ${new}"
+
+    set supported 1
+    set test "${prefix}; print old l, expecting ${l}"
+    gdb_test_multiple "print l" "$test"  {
+	-re " = <optimized out>\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    unsupported $test
+	    set supported 0
+	}
+	-re " = ${l}\r\n$gdb_prompt $" {
+	    pass $test
+	}
+    }
+    if { $supported } {
+	gdb_test "print r" " = ${r}" \
+	    "${prefix}; print old r, expecting ${r}"
+	gdb_test_no_output "set variable l = 4" \
+	    "${prefix}; set l to 4"
+	gdb_test "print l" " = ${new}" \
+	    "${prefix}; print new l, expecting ${new}"
+    }
 }
 
 up_set "charest" "-1 .*" "-2 .*" "4 ..004."