| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Files | Lines |
|---|
|
This commit is the result of the following actions:
- Running gdb/copyright.py to update all of the copyright headers to
include 2024,
- Manually updating a few files the copyright.py script told me to
update, these files had copyright headers embedded within the
file,
- Regenerating gdbsupport/Makefile.in to refresh it's copyright
date,
- Using grep to find other files that still mentioned 2023. If
these files were updated last year from 2022 to 2023 then I've
updated them this year to 2024.
I'm sure I've probably missed some dates. Feel free to fix them up as
you spot them.
|
|
This changes skip_python_tests to invert the sense, and renames it to
allow_python_tests.
|
|
This changes various tests to use "require" for the Python feature.
|
|
This commit is the result of running the gdb/copyright.py script,
which automated the update of the copyright year range for all
source files managed by the GDB project to be updated to include
year 2023.
|
|
This commit brings all the changes made by running gdb/copyright.py
as per GDB's Start of New Year Procedure.
For the avoidance of doubt, all changes in this commits were
performed by the script.
|
|
The `Type.range ()` tests in gdb.python/flexible-array-member.exp pass
when the test is compiled with gcc 9 or later, but not with gcc 8 or
earlier:
$ make check TESTS="gdb.python/flexible-array-member.exp" RUNTESTFLAGS="CC_FOR_TARGET='gcc-8'"
python print(zs['items'].type.range())^M
(0, 0)^M
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.python/flexible-array-member.exp: python print(zs['items'].type.range())
python print(zso['items'].type.range())^M
(0, 0)^M
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.python/flexible-array-member.exp: python print(zso['items'].type.range())
The value that we get for the upper bound of a flexible array member
declared with a "0" size is 0 with gcc <= 8 and is -1 for gcc >= 9.
This is due to different debug info. For this member, gcc 8 does:
0x000000d5: DW_TAG_array_type
DW_AT_type [DW_FORM_ref4] (0x00000034 "int")
DW_AT_sibling [DW_FORM_ref4] (0x000000e4)
0x000000de: DW_TAG_subrange_type
DW_AT_type [DW_FORM_ref4] (0x0000002d "long unsigned int")
For the same type, gcc 9 does:
0x000000d5: DW_TAG_array_type
DW_AT_type [DW_FORM_ref4] (0x00000034 "int")
DW_AT_sibling [DW_FORM_ref4] (0x000000e5)
0x000000de: DW_TAG_subrange_type
DW_AT_type [DW_FORM_ref4] (0x0000002d "long unsigned int")
DW_AT_count [DW_FORM_data1] (0x00)
Ideally, GDB would present a consistent and documented value for an
array member declared with size 0, regardless of how the debug info
looks like. But for now, just change the test to accept the two
values, to get rid of the failure and make the test in sync
I also realized (by looking at the py-type.exp test) that calling the
fields method on an array type yields one field representing the "index"
of the array. The type of that field is of type range
(gdb.TYPE_CODE_RANGE). When calling `.range()` on that range type, it
yields the same range tuple as when calling `.range()` on the array type
itself. For completeness, add some tests to access the range tuple
through that range type as well.
gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gdb.python/flexible-array-member.exp: Adjust expected range
value for member declared with 0 size. Test accessing range
tuple through range type.
Change-Id: Ie4e06d99fe9315527f04577888f48284d649ca4c
|
|
We don't want to execute this test if Python support is not compiled in
GDB, add the necessary check.
gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
* gdb.python/flexible-array-member.exp: Add check for Python
support.
Change-Id: I853b937d2a193a0bb216566bef1a35354264b1c5
|
|
As reported in bug 27757, we get an internal error when doing:
$ cat test.c
struct foo {
int len;
int items[];
};
struct foo *p;
int main() {
return 0;
}
$ gcc test.c -g -O0 -o test
$ ./gdb -q -nx --data-directory=data-directory ./test -ex 'python gdb.parse_and_eval("p").type.target()["items"].type.range()'
Reading symbols from ./test...
/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/gdb/gdbtypes.h:435: internal-error: LONGEST dynamic_prop::const_val() const: Assertion `m_kind == PROP_CONST' failed.
A problem internal to GDB has been detected,
further debugging may prove unreliable.
Quit this debugging session? (y or n)
This is because the Python code (typy_range) blindly reads the high
bound of the type of `items` as a constant value. Since it is a
flexible array member, it has no high bound, the property is undefined.
Since commit 8c2e4e0689 ("gdb: add accessors to struct dynamic_prop"),
the getters check that you are not getting a property value of the wrong
kind, so this causes a failed assertion.
Fix it by checking if the property is indeed a constant value before
accessing it as such. Otherwise, use 0. This restores the previous GDB
behavior: because the structure was zero-initialized, this is what was
returned before. But now this behavior is explicit and not accidental.
Add a test, gdb.python/flexible-array-member.exp, that is derived from
gdb.base/flexible-array-member.exp. It tests the same things, but
through the Python API. It also specifically tests getting the range
from the various kinds of flexible array member types (AFAIK it wasn't
possible to do the equivalent through the CLI).
gdb/ChangeLog:
PR gdb/27757
* python/py-type.c (typy_range): Check that bounds are constant
before accessing them as such.
* guile/scm-type.c (gdbscm_type_range): Likewise.
gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
PR gdb/27757
* gdb.python/flexible-array-member.c: New test.
* gdb.python/flexible-array-member.exp: New test.
* gdb.guile/scm-type.exp (test_range): Add test for flexible
array member.
* gdb.guile/scm-type.c (struct flex_member): New.
(main): Use it.
Change-Id: Ibef92ee5fd871ecb7c791db2a788f203dff2b841
|
