| Message ID | yddpntdonc6.fsf@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [testsuite] Fix gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c with Solaris as (PR debug/87451) | expand |
On Thu, 3 Jan 2019, Rainer Orth wrote: > gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c currently FAILs with Solaris as (both > sparc and x86): > > FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-not \\\\(DIE \\\\(0x([0-9a-f]*)\\\\) DW_TAG_lexical_block\\\\)[^#/!]*[#/!] [^(].*DW_TAG_lexical_block\\\\)[^#/!x]*x\\\\1[^#/!]*[#/!] DW_AT_abstract_origin > FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-times DW_TAG_lexical_block\\\\)[^#/!]*[#/!] \\\\(DIE \\\\(0x[0-9a-f]*\\\\) DW_TAG_variable 1 > > The first failure seems to be caused because .* performs multiline > matches by default in Tcl; tightening it to [^\n]* avoids the problem. Hmm, but the matches are supposed to match multiple lines... how does it fail for you? > The second failures happens because Solaris as doesn't support .uleb128, > so we get e.g. > > .byte 0xc / uleb128 0xc; (DIE (0x19f) DW_TAG_lexical_block) > .byte 0xd / uleb128 0xd; (DIE (0x1a0) DW_TAG_variable) > > instead of > > .uleb128 0xc / (DIE (0xad) DW_TAG_lexical_block) > .uleb128 0xd / (DIE (0xae) DW_TAG_variable) > > To fix this, the patch allows for additional non-comment text before (DIE. > > Tested on i386-pc-solaris2.11, sparc-sun-solaris2.11, and > x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Ok for mainline?
Hi Richard, > On Thu, 3 Jan 2019, Rainer Orth wrote: > >> gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c currently FAILs with Solaris as (both >> sparc and x86): >> >> FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-not \\\\(DIE >> \\\\(0x([0-9a-f]*)\\\\) DW_TAG_lexical_block\\\\)[^#/!]*[#/!] >> [^(].*DW_TAG_lexical_block\\\\)[^#/!x]*x\\\\1[^#/!]*[#/!] >> DW_AT_abstract_origin >> FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-times >> DW_TAG_lexical_block\\\\)[^#/!]*[#/!] \\\\(DIE \\\\(0x[0-9a-f]*\\\\) >> DW_TAG_variable 1 >> >> The first failure seems to be caused because .* performs multiline >> matches by default in Tcl; tightening it to [^\n]* avoids the problem. > > Hmm, but the matches are supposed to match multiple lines... how > does it fail for you? it matches all of (DIE (0x19f) DW_TAG_lexical_block) .byte 0xd / uleb128 0xd; (DIE (0x1a0) DW_TAG_variable) .ascii "j" / DW_AT_name .byte 0x1 / DW_AT_decl_file (/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c) .byte 0x12 / DW_AT_decl_line .byte 0x14 / DW_AT_decl_column .long 0x17f / DW_AT_type .byte 0 / end of children of DIE 0x19f .byte 0 / end of children of DIE 0x184 .byte 0xe / uleb128 0xe; (DIE (0x1ac) DW_TAG_subprogram) .long 0x184 / DW_AT_abstract_origin .long .LFB0 / DW_AT_low_pc .long .LFE0-.LFB0 / DW_AT_high_pc .byte 0x1 / uleb128 0x1; DW_AT_frame_base .byte 0x9c / DW_OP_call_frame_cfa / DW_AT_GNU_all_call_sites .byte 0xf / uleb128 0xf; (DIE (0x1bb) DW_TAG_formal_parameter) .long 0x195 / DW_AT_abstract_origin .byte 0x2 / uleb128 0x2; DW_AT_location .byte 0x91 / DW_OP_fbreg .byte 0 / sleb128 0 .byte 0x6 / uleb128 0x6; (DIE (0x1c3) DW_TAG_lexical_block) .long 0x19f / DW_AT_abstract_origin while with gas there's instead .uleb128 0xc / (DIE (0xad) DW_TAG_lexical_block) .uleb128 0xd / (DIE (0xae) DW_TAG_variable) .ascii "j\0" / DW_AT_name .byte 0x1 / DW_AT_decl_file (/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c) i.e. the pattern doesn't match with gas due to the [^(] while with as we have uleb128 first which does match, producing the failure (which shows that that part of my patch is wrong). Rainer
Hi Richard, >> On Thu, 3 Jan 2019, Rainer Orth wrote: >> >>> gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c currently FAILs with Solaris as (both >>> sparc and x86): >>> >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-not \\\\(DIE >>> \\\\(0x([0-9a-f]*)\\\\) DW_TAG_lexical_block\\\\)[^#/!]*[#/!] >>> [^(].*DW_TAG_lexical_block\\\\)[^#/!x]*x\\\\1[^#/!]*[#/!] >>> DW_AT_abstract_origin >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-times >>> DW_TAG_lexical_block\\\\)[^#/!]*[#/!] \\\\(DIE \\\\(0x[0-9a-f]*\\\\) >>> DW_TAG_variable 1 >>> >>> The first failure seems to be caused because .* performs multiline >>> matches by default in Tcl; tightening it to [^\n]* avoids the problem. >> >> Hmm, but the matches are supposed to match multiple lines... how >> does it fail for you? > > it matches all of > > (DIE (0x19f) DW_TAG_lexical_block) > .byte 0xd / uleb128 0xd; (DIE (0x1a0) DW_TAG_variable) > .ascii "j" / DW_AT_name > .byte 0x1 / DW_AT_decl_file (/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c) > .byte 0x12 / DW_AT_decl_line > .byte 0x14 / DW_AT_decl_column > .long 0x17f / DW_AT_type > .byte 0 / end of children of DIE 0x19f > .byte 0 / end of children of DIE 0x184 > .byte 0xe / uleb128 0xe; (DIE (0x1ac) DW_TAG_subprogram) > .long 0x184 / DW_AT_abstract_origin > .long .LFB0 / DW_AT_low_pc > .long .LFE0-.LFB0 / DW_AT_high_pc > .byte 0x1 / uleb128 0x1; DW_AT_frame_base > .byte 0x9c / DW_OP_call_frame_cfa > / DW_AT_GNU_all_call_sites > .byte 0xf / uleb128 0xf; (DIE (0x1bb) DW_TAG_formal_parameter) > .long 0x195 / DW_AT_abstract_origin > .byte 0x2 / uleb128 0x2; DW_AT_location > .byte 0x91 / DW_OP_fbreg > .byte 0 / sleb128 0 > .byte 0x6 / uleb128 0x6; (DIE (0x1c3) DW_TAG_lexical_block) > .long 0x19f / DW_AT_abstract_origin > > while with gas there's instead > > .uleb128 0xc / (DIE (0xad) DW_TAG_lexical_block) > .uleb128 0xd / (DIE (0xae) DW_TAG_variable) > .ascii "j\0" / DW_AT_name > .byte 0x1 / DW_AT_decl_file (/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c) > > i.e. the pattern doesn't match with gas due to the [^(] while with as we > have uleb128 first which does match, producing the failure (which shows > that that part of my patch is wrong). I still have a hard time determining what to do here. I've now reverted the tree to r264642, i.e. the one before the PR debug/87443 patch. Then I build on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and ran the inline5.c testcase against the old compiler. I'd have expected all the scan-assembler* tests to FAIL here, but instead I get PASS: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c (test for excess errors) PASS: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-times DW_TAG_inlined_subrouti ne 2 FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-times DW_TAG_lexical_block\\) [^#/!]*[#/!] DW_AT_abstract_origin 2 PASS: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-times DW_TAG_lexical_block\\) [^#/!]*[#/!] \\(DIE \\(0x[0-9a-f]*\\) DW_TAG_variable 1 PASS: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-not \\(DIE \\(0x([0-9a-f]*)\\ ) DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)[^#/!]*[#/!] [^(].*DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)[^#/!x]*x\\1[ ^#/!]*[#/!] DW_AT_abstract_origin FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-not DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)[^ #/!x]*x([0-9a-f]*)[^#/!]*[#/!] DW_AT_abstract_origin.*\\(DIE \\(0x\\1\\) DW_TAG_ lexical_block\\)[^#/!]*[#/!] DW_AT i.e. the problematic scan-assembler-not test PASSes before and after your patch, making it hard to determine what that test is guarding against (i.e. what is matched on Linux/x86_64 or Solaris with gas) and adapting it to the Solaris as syntax. Rainer
On Fri, 4 Jan 2019, Rainer Orth wrote: > Hi Richard, > > >> On Thu, 3 Jan 2019, Rainer Orth wrote: > >> > >>> gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c currently FAILs with Solaris as (both > >>> sparc and x86): > >>> > >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-not \\\\(DIE > >>> \\\\(0x([0-9a-f]*)\\\\) DW_TAG_lexical_block\\\\)[^#/!]*[#/!] > >>> [^(].*DW_TAG_lexical_block\\\\)[^#/!x]*x\\\\1[^#/!]*[#/!] > >>> DW_AT_abstract_origin > >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-times > >>> DW_TAG_lexical_block\\\\)[^#/!]*[#/!] \\\\(DIE \\\\(0x[0-9a-f]*\\\\) > >>> DW_TAG_variable 1 > >>> > >>> The first failure seems to be caused because .* performs multiline > >>> matches by default in Tcl; tightening it to [^\n]* avoids the problem. > >> > >> Hmm, but the matches are supposed to match multiple lines... how > >> does it fail for you? > > > > it matches all of > > > > (DIE (0x19f) DW_TAG_lexical_block) > > .byte 0xd / uleb128 0xd; (DIE (0x1a0) DW_TAG_variable) > > .ascii "j" / DW_AT_name > > .byte 0x1 / DW_AT_decl_file (/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c) > > .byte 0x12 / DW_AT_decl_line > > .byte 0x14 / DW_AT_decl_column > > .long 0x17f / DW_AT_type > > .byte 0 / end of children of DIE 0x19f > > .byte 0 / end of children of DIE 0x184 > > .byte 0xe / uleb128 0xe; (DIE (0x1ac) DW_TAG_subprogram) > > .long 0x184 / DW_AT_abstract_origin > > .long .LFB0 / DW_AT_low_pc > > .long .LFE0-.LFB0 / DW_AT_high_pc > > .byte 0x1 / uleb128 0x1; DW_AT_frame_base > > .byte 0x9c / DW_OP_call_frame_cfa > > / DW_AT_GNU_all_call_sites > > .byte 0xf / uleb128 0xf; (DIE (0x1bb) DW_TAG_formal_parameter) > > .long 0x195 / DW_AT_abstract_origin > > .byte 0x2 / uleb128 0x2; DW_AT_location > > .byte 0x91 / DW_OP_fbreg > > .byte 0 / sleb128 0 > > .byte 0x6 / uleb128 0x6; (DIE (0x1c3) DW_TAG_lexical_block) > > .long 0x19f / DW_AT_abstract_origin > > > > while with gas there's instead > > > > .uleb128 0xc / (DIE (0xad) DW_TAG_lexical_block) > > .uleb128 0xd / (DIE (0xae) DW_TAG_variable) > > .ascii "j\0" / DW_AT_name > > .byte 0x1 / DW_AT_decl_file (/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c) > > > > i.e. the pattern doesn't match with gas due to the [^(] while with as we > > have uleb128 first which does match, producing the failure (which shows > > that that part of my patch is wrong). > > I still have a hard time determining what to do here. I've now reverted > the tree to r264642, i.e. the one before the PR debug/87443 patch. Then > I build on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and ran the inline5.c testcase against > the old compiler. I'd have expected all the scan-assembler* tests to > FAIL here, but instead I get > > PASS: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c (test for excess errors) > PASS: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-times DW_TAG_inlined_subrouti > ne 2 > FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-times DW_TAG_lexical_block\\) > [^#/!]*[#/!] DW_AT_abstract_origin 2 > PASS: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-times DW_TAG_lexical_block\\) > [^#/!]*[#/!] \\(DIE \\(0x[0-9a-f]*\\) DW_TAG_variable 1 > PASS: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-not \\(DIE \\(0x([0-9a-f]*)\\ > ) DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)[^#/!]*[#/!] [^(].*DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)[^#/!x]*x\\1[ > ^#/!]*[#/!] DW_AT_abstract_origin > FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-not DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)[^ > #/!x]*x([0-9a-f]*)[^#/!]*[#/!] DW_AT_abstract_origin.*\\(DIE \\(0x\\1\\) DW_TAG_ > lexical_block\\)[^#/!]*[#/!] DW_AT > > i.e. the problematic scan-assembler-not test PASSes before and after > your patch, making it hard to determine what that test is guarding > against (i.e. what is matched on Linux/x86_64 or Solaris with gas) and > adapting it to the Solaris as syntax. Yeah, the issue is I applied patches in another order than I developed the testcases... I think you need to back out the PR87428/87362 fix to see this FAIL happening. What we want to not see is a lexical block used as abstract origin that has further attributes. GCC 8 shows bogus DWARF: <2><5c>: Abbrev Number: 4 (DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine) <5d> DW_AT_abstract_origin: <0xa9> <61> DW_AT_low_pc : 0xf <69> DW_AT_high_pc : 0xf <71> DW_AT_call_file : 1 <72> DW_AT_call_line : 10 <73> DW_AT_call_column : 20 <3><74>: Abbrev Number: 5 (DW_TAG_formal_parameter) <75> DW_AT_abstract_origin: <0xba> <79> DW_AT_location : 0x0 (location list) <3><7d>: Abbrev Number: 6 (DW_TAG_lexical_block) <7e> DW_AT_abstract_origin: <0xf1> <82> DW_AT_low_pc : 0xf ... <1><a9>: Abbrev Number: 10 (DW_TAG_subprogram) <aa> DW_AT_external : 1 <aa> DW_AT_name : foo <ae> DW_AT_decl_file : 1 <af> DW_AT_decl_line : 1 (abstract instance) ... <2><c4>: Abbrev Number: 12 (DW_TAG_lexical_block) <3><c5>: Abbrev Number: 13 (DW_TAG_variable) <c6> DW_AT_name : j <c8> DW_AT_decl_file : 1 ... <1><d1>: Abbrev Number: 14 (DW_TAG_subprogram) <d2> DW_AT_abstract_origin: <0xa9> <d6> DW_AT_low_pc : 0x0 <de> DW_AT_high_pc : 0xf (concrete instance) ... <2><f1>: Abbrev Number: 15 (DW_TAG_lexical_block) <f2> DW_AT_low_pc : 0x0 <fa> DW_AT_high_pc : 0xe so the inline instance DW_TAG_lexical_block at 0x7d should not refer tho this one but to the DW_TAG_lexical_block in the abstract instance. I knew it was very twiddly to come up with a way to test for this and I ultimatively settled with a scan-assembler-not ... That the order of abstract and concrete instance DIEs isn't reliable makes things worse. Ideas welcome but I'd consider XFAILing this for non-gas a valid solution ;) Richard.
Hi Richard, > On Fri, 4 Jan 2019, Rainer Orth wrote: > >> Hi Richard, >> >> >> On Thu, 3 Jan 2019, Rainer Orth wrote: >> >> >> >>> gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c currently FAILs with Solaris as (both >> >>> sparc and x86): >> >>> >> >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-not \\\\(DIE >> >>> \\\\(0x([0-9a-f]*)\\\\) DW_TAG_lexical_block\\\\)[^#/!]*[#/!] >> >>> [^(].*DW_TAG_lexical_block\\\\)[^#/!x]*x\\\\1[^#/!]*[#/!] >> >>> DW_AT_abstract_origin >> >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-times >> >>> DW_TAG_lexical_block\\\\)[^#/!]*[#/!] \\\\(DIE \\\\(0x[0-9a-f]*\\\\) >> >>> DW_TAG_variable 1 >> >>> >> >>> The first failure seems to be caused because .* performs multiline >> >>> matches by default in Tcl; tightening it to [^\n]* avoids the problem. >> >> >> >> Hmm, but the matches are supposed to match multiple lines... how >> >> does it fail for you? >> > >> > it matches all of >> > >> > (DIE (0x19f) DW_TAG_lexical_block) >> > .byte 0xd / uleb128 0xd; (DIE (0x1a0) DW_TAG_variable) >> > .ascii "j" / DW_AT_name >> > .byte 0x1 / DW_AT_decl_file (/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c) >> > .byte 0x12 / DW_AT_decl_line >> > .byte 0x14 / DW_AT_decl_column >> > .long 0x17f / DW_AT_type >> > .byte 0 / end of children of DIE 0x19f >> > .byte 0 / end of children of DIE 0x184 >> > .byte 0xe / uleb128 0xe; (DIE (0x1ac) DW_TAG_subprogram) >> > .long 0x184 / DW_AT_abstract_origin >> > .long .LFB0 / DW_AT_low_pc >> > .long .LFE0-.LFB0 / DW_AT_high_pc >> > .byte 0x1 / uleb128 0x1; DW_AT_frame_base >> > .byte 0x9c / DW_OP_call_frame_cfa >> > / DW_AT_GNU_all_call_sites >> > .byte 0xf / uleb128 0xf; (DIE (0x1bb) DW_TAG_formal_parameter) >> > .long 0x195 / DW_AT_abstract_origin >> > .byte 0x2 / uleb128 0x2; DW_AT_location >> > .byte 0x91 / DW_OP_fbreg >> > .byte 0 / sleb128 0 >> > .byte 0x6 / uleb128 0x6; (DIE (0x1c3) DW_TAG_lexical_block) >> > .long 0x19f / DW_AT_abstract_origin >> > >> > while with gas there's instead >> > >> > .uleb128 0xc / (DIE (0xad) DW_TAG_lexical_block) >> > .uleb128 0xd / (DIE (0xae) DW_TAG_variable) >> > .ascii "j\0" / DW_AT_name >> > .byte 0x1 / DW_AT_decl_file (/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c) >> > >> > i.e. the pattern doesn't match with gas due to the [^(] while with as we >> > have uleb128 first which does match, producing the failure (which shows >> > that that part of my patch is wrong). >> >> I still have a hard time determining what to do here. I've now reverted >> the tree to r264642, i.e. the one before the PR debug/87443 patch. Then >> I build on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and ran the inline5.c testcase against >> the old compiler. I'd have expected all the scan-assembler* tests to >> FAIL here, but instead I get >> >> PASS: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c (test for excess errors) >> PASS: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-times >> DW_TAG_inlined_subrouti >> ne 2 >> FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-times >> DW_TAG_lexical_block\\) >> [^#/!]*[#/!] DW_AT_abstract_origin 2 >> PASS: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-times >> DW_TAG_lexical_block\\) >> [^#/!]*[#/!] \\(DIE \\(0x[0-9a-f]*\\) DW_TAG_variable 1 >> PASS: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-not \\(DIE >> \\(0x([0-9a-f]*)\\ >> ) DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)[^#/!]*[#/!] >> [^(].*DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)[^#/!x]*x\\1[ >> ^#/!]*[#/!] DW_AT_abstract_origin >> FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-not >> DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)[^ >> #/!x]*x([0-9a-f]*)[^#/!]*[#/!] DW_AT_abstract_origin.*\\(DIE \\(0x\\1\\) >> DW_TAG_ >> lexical_block\\)[^#/!]*[#/!] DW_AT >> >> i.e. the problematic scan-assembler-not test PASSes before and after >> your patch, making it hard to determine what that test is guarding >> against (i.e. what is matched on Linux/x86_64 or Solaris with gas) and >> adapting it to the Solaris as syntax. > > Yeah, the issue is I applied patches in another order than I developed > the testcases... I think you need to back out the PR87428/87362 > fix to see this FAIL happening. > > What we want to not see is a lexical block used as abstract origin > that has further attributes. GCC 8 shows bogus DWARF: > > <2><5c>: Abbrev Number: 4 (DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine) > <5d> DW_AT_abstract_origin: <0xa9> > <61> DW_AT_low_pc : 0xf > <69> DW_AT_high_pc : 0xf > <71> DW_AT_call_file : 1 > <72> DW_AT_call_line : 10 > <73> DW_AT_call_column : 20 > <3><74>: Abbrev Number: 5 (DW_TAG_formal_parameter) > <75> DW_AT_abstract_origin: <0xba> > <79> DW_AT_location : 0x0 (location list) > <3><7d>: Abbrev Number: 6 (DW_TAG_lexical_block) > <7e> DW_AT_abstract_origin: <0xf1> > <82> DW_AT_low_pc : 0xf > ... > <1><a9>: Abbrev Number: 10 (DW_TAG_subprogram) > <aa> DW_AT_external : 1 > <aa> DW_AT_name : foo > <ae> DW_AT_decl_file : 1 > <af> DW_AT_decl_line : 1 > (abstract instance) > ... > <2><c4>: Abbrev Number: 12 (DW_TAG_lexical_block) > <3><c5>: Abbrev Number: 13 (DW_TAG_variable) > <c6> DW_AT_name : j > <c8> DW_AT_decl_file : 1 > ... > <1><d1>: Abbrev Number: 14 (DW_TAG_subprogram) > <d2> DW_AT_abstract_origin: <0xa9> > <d6> DW_AT_low_pc : 0x0 > <de> DW_AT_high_pc : 0xf > (concrete instance) > ... > <2><f1>: Abbrev Number: 15 (DW_TAG_lexical_block) > <f2> DW_AT_low_pc : 0x0 > <fa> DW_AT_high_pc : 0xe > > so the inline instance DW_TAG_lexical_block at 0x7d should not > refer tho this one but to the DW_TAG_lexical_block in the > abstract instance. > > I knew it was very twiddly to come up with a way to test for this > and I ultimatively settled with a scan-assembler-not ... > > That the order of abstract and concrete instance DIEs isn't > reliable makes things worse. > > Ideas welcome but I'd consider XFAILing this for non-gas a valid > solution ;) I'm only now getting back to this. Reverting the tree back before r264594 still doesn't make test test FAIL. I don't think it's worth spending any more time on this, so I'm going for the xfail instead. With the recent adjustments to allow for all comment chars, I had to adjust the first pattern: Solaris/x86 as uses, so ; cannot be in the new set of comment chars here: .byte 0xc / uleb128 0xc; (DIE (0x19f) DW_TAG_lexical_block) Tested on i386-pc-solaris2.11, sparc and x86, as and gas as well as x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Ok for mainline? Rainer
On February 6, 2019 3:47:19 PM GMT+01:00, Rainer Orth <ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE> wrote: >Hi Richard, > >> On Fri, 4 Jan 2019, Rainer Orth wrote: >> >>> Hi Richard, >>> >>> >> On Thu, 3 Jan 2019, Rainer Orth wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c currently FAILs with Solaris as >(both >>> >>> sparc and x86): >>> >>> >>> >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-not \\\\(DIE >>> >>> \\\\(0x([0-9a-f]*)\\\\) DW_TAG_lexical_block\\\\)[^#/!]*[#/!] >>> >>> [^(].*DW_TAG_lexical_block\\\\)[^#/!x]*x\\\\1[^#/!]*[#/!] >>> >>> DW_AT_abstract_origin >>> >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-times >>> >>> DW_TAG_lexical_block\\\\)[^#/!]*[#/!] \\\\(DIE >\\\\(0x[0-9a-f]*\\\\) >>> >>> DW_TAG_variable 1 >>> >>> >>> >>> The first failure seems to be caused because .* performs >multiline >>> >>> matches by default in Tcl; tightening it to [^\n]* avoids the >problem. >>> >> >>> >> Hmm, but the matches are supposed to match multiple lines... how >>> >> does it fail for you? >>> > >>> > it matches all of >>> > >>> > (DIE (0x19f) DW_TAG_lexical_block) >>> > .byte 0xd / uleb128 0xd; (DIE (0x1a0) >DW_TAG_variable) >>> > .ascii "j" / DW_AT_name >>> > .byte 0x1 / DW_AT_decl_file >(/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c) >>> > .byte 0x12 / DW_AT_decl_line >>> > .byte 0x14 / DW_AT_decl_column >>> > .long 0x17f / DW_AT_type >>> > .byte 0 / end of children of DIE 0x19f >>> > .byte 0 / end of children of DIE 0x184 >>> > .byte 0xe / uleb128 0xe; (DIE (0x1ac) >DW_TAG_subprogram) >>> > .long 0x184 / DW_AT_abstract_origin >>> > .long .LFB0 / DW_AT_low_pc >>> > .long .LFE0-.LFB0 / DW_AT_high_pc >>> > .byte 0x1 / uleb128 0x1; DW_AT_frame_base >>> > .byte 0x9c / DW_OP_call_frame_cfa >>> > / DW_AT_GNU_all_call_sites >>> > .byte 0xf / uleb128 0xf; (DIE (0x1bb) >DW_TAG_formal_parameter) >>> > .long 0x195 / DW_AT_abstract_origin >>> > .byte 0x2 / uleb128 0x2; DW_AT_location >>> > .byte 0x91 / DW_OP_fbreg >>> > .byte 0 / sleb128 0 >>> > .byte 0x6 / uleb128 0x6; (DIE (0x1c3) >DW_TAG_lexical_block) >>> > .long 0x19f / DW_AT_abstract_origin >>> > >>> > while with gas there's instead >>> > >>> > .uleb128 0xc / (DIE (0xad) DW_TAG_lexical_block) >>> > .uleb128 0xd / (DIE (0xae) DW_TAG_variable) >>> > .ascii "j\0" / DW_AT_name >>> > .byte 0x1 / DW_AT_decl_file >(/vol/gcc/src/hg/trunk/local/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c) >>> > >>> > i.e. the pattern doesn't match with gas due to the [^(] while with >as we >>> > have uleb128 first which does match, producing the failure (which >shows >>> > that that part of my patch is wrong). >>> >>> I still have a hard time determining what to do here. I've now >reverted >>> the tree to r264642, i.e. the one before the PR debug/87443 patch. >Then >>> I build on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and ran the inline5.c testcase >against >>> the old compiler. I'd have expected all the scan-assembler* tests >to >>> FAIL here, but instead I get >>> >>> PASS: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c (test for excess errors) >>> PASS: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-times >>> DW_TAG_inlined_subrouti >>> ne 2 >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-times >>> DW_TAG_lexical_block\\) >>> [^#/!]*[#/!] DW_AT_abstract_origin 2 >>> PASS: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-times >>> DW_TAG_lexical_block\\) >>> [^#/!]*[#/!] \\(DIE \\(0x[0-9a-f]*\\) DW_TAG_variable 1 >>> PASS: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-not \\(DIE >>> \\(0x([0-9a-f]*)\\ >>> ) DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)[^#/!]*[#/!] >>> [^(].*DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)[^#/!x]*x\\1[ >>> ^#/!]*[#/!] DW_AT_abstract_origin >>> FAIL: gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c scan-assembler-not >>> DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)[^ >>> #/!x]*x([0-9a-f]*)[^#/!]*[#/!] DW_AT_abstract_origin.*\\(DIE >\\(0x\\1\\) >>> DW_TAG_ >>> lexical_block\\)[^#/!]*[#/!] DW_AT >>> >>> i.e. the problematic scan-assembler-not test PASSes before and after >>> your patch, making it hard to determine what that test is guarding >>> against (i.e. what is matched on Linux/x86_64 or Solaris with gas) >and >>> adapting it to the Solaris as syntax. >> >> Yeah, the issue is I applied patches in another order than I >developed >> the testcases... I think you need to back out the PR87428/87362 >> fix to see this FAIL happening. >> >> What we want to not see is a lexical block used as abstract origin >> that has further attributes. GCC 8 shows bogus DWARF: >> >> <2><5c>: Abbrev Number: 4 (DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine) >> <5d> DW_AT_abstract_origin: <0xa9> >> <61> DW_AT_low_pc : 0xf >> <69> DW_AT_high_pc : 0xf >> <71> DW_AT_call_file : 1 >> <72> DW_AT_call_line : 10 >> <73> DW_AT_call_column : 20 >> <3><74>: Abbrev Number: 5 (DW_TAG_formal_parameter) >> <75> DW_AT_abstract_origin: <0xba> >> <79> DW_AT_location : 0x0 (location list) >> <3><7d>: Abbrev Number: 6 (DW_TAG_lexical_block) >> <7e> DW_AT_abstract_origin: <0xf1> >> <82> DW_AT_low_pc : 0xf >> ... >> <1><a9>: Abbrev Number: 10 (DW_TAG_subprogram) >> <aa> DW_AT_external : 1 >> <aa> DW_AT_name : foo >> <ae> DW_AT_decl_file : 1 >> <af> DW_AT_decl_line : 1 >> (abstract instance) >> ... >> <2><c4>: Abbrev Number: 12 (DW_TAG_lexical_block) >> <3><c5>: Abbrev Number: 13 (DW_TAG_variable) >> <c6> DW_AT_name : j >> <c8> DW_AT_decl_file : 1 >> ... >> <1><d1>: Abbrev Number: 14 (DW_TAG_subprogram) >> <d2> DW_AT_abstract_origin: <0xa9> >> <d6> DW_AT_low_pc : 0x0 >> <de> DW_AT_high_pc : 0xf >> (concrete instance) >> ... >> <2><f1>: Abbrev Number: 15 (DW_TAG_lexical_block) >> <f2> DW_AT_low_pc : 0x0 >> <fa> DW_AT_high_pc : 0xe >> >> so the inline instance DW_TAG_lexical_block at 0x7d should not >> refer tho this one but to the DW_TAG_lexical_block in the >> abstract instance. >> >> I knew it was very twiddly to come up with a way to test for this >> and I ultimatively settled with a scan-assembler-not ... >> >> That the order of abstract and concrete instance DIEs isn't >> reliable makes things worse. >> >> Ideas welcome but I'd consider XFAILing this for non-gas a valid >> solution ;) > >I'm only now getting back to this. Reverting the tree back before >r264594 still doesn't make test test FAIL. I don't think it's worth >spending any more time on this, so I'm going for the xfail instead. > >With the recent adjustments to allow for all comment chars, I had to >adjust the first pattern: Solaris/x86 as uses, so ; cannot be in the >new >set of comment chars here: > > .byte 0xc / uleb128 0xc; (DIE (0x19f) DW_TAG_lexical_block) > >Tested on i386-pc-solaris2.11, sparc and x86, as and gas as well as >x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. > >Ok for mainline? OK. Richard. > Rainer
# HG changeset patch # Parent 9265ca22ad184b53589ea032b85a14f545ba564a Fix gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c with Solaris as (PR debug/87451) diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c --- a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/debug/dwarf2/inline5.c @@ -5,12 +5,12 @@ /* { dg-do compile } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine" 2 } } */ /* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\] DW_AT_abstract_origin" 2 } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\] \\(DIE \\(0x\[0-9a-f\]*\\) DW_TAG_variable" 1 } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-times "DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\] \[^#/!\]*\\(DIE \\(0x\[0-9a-f\]*\\) DW_TAG_variable" 1 } } */ /* We do not know which is output first so look for both invalid abstract origins on the lexical blocks (knowing that the abstract instance has no attribute following the DW_TAG_lexical_block. */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "\\(DIE \\(0x(\[0-9a-f\]*)\\) DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\] \[^(\].*DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!x\]*x\\1\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\] DW_AT_abstract_origin" } } */ -/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!x\]*x(\[0-9a-f\]*)\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\] DW_AT_abstract_origin.*\\(DIE \\(0x\\1\\) DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\] DW_AT" } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "\\(DIE \\(0x(\[0-9a-f\]*)\\) DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\] \[^(\]\[^\\n\]*DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!x\]*x\\1\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\] DW_AT_abstract_origin" } } */ +/* { dg-final { scan-assembler-not "DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!x\]*x(\[0-9a-f\]*)\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\] DW_AT_abstract_origin\[^\\n\]*\\(DIE \\(0x\\1\\) DW_TAG_lexical_block\\)\[^#/!\]*\[#/!\] DW_AT" } } */ int foo (int i) {