# This testcase is part of GDB, the GNU debugger.
-# Copyright 1996, 1997, 1999, 2003, 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+# Copyright 1996, 1997, 1999, 2003, 2004, 2007, 2008
+# Free Software Foundation, Inc.
# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
-# the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
+# the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or
# (at your option) any later version.
-#
+#
# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
# GNU General Public License for more details.
-#
+#
# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
-# along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
-# Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA.
+# along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
# Please email any bugs, comments, and/or additions to this file to:
# bug-gdb@prep.ai.mit.edu
# built the second test case since we can't use prototypes
warning "Prototypes not supported, rebuilding with -DNO_PROTOTYPES"
if { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable "${flags} additional_flags=-DNO_PROTOTYPES"] != "" } {
- gdb_suppress_entire_file "Testcase compile failed, so all tests in this file will automatically fail."
+ untested structs.exp
+ return -1
}
}
} $n]
}
+proc any { n } {
+ return [lindex {
+ "{}"
+ "{a = \[^,\}\]*}"
+ "{a = \[^,\}\]*, b = \[^,\}\]*}"
+ "{a = \[^,\}\]*, b = \[^,\}\]*, c = \[^,\}\]*}"
+ "{a = \[^,\}\]*, b = \[^,\}\]*, c = \[^,\}\]*, d = \[^,\}\]*}"
+ "{a = \[^,\}\]*, b = \[^,\}\]*, c = \[^,\}\]*, d = \[^,\}\]*, e = \[^,\}\]*}"
+ "{a = \[^,\}\]*, b = \[^,\}\]*, c = \[^,\}\]*, d = \[^,\}\]*, e = \[^,\}\]*, f = \[^,\}\]*}"
+ "{a = \[^,\}\]*, b = \[^,\}\]*, c = \[^,\}\]*, d = \[^,\}\]*, e = \[^,\}\]*, f = \[^,\}\]*, g = \[^,\}\]*}"
+ "{a = \[^,\}\]*, b = \[^,\}\]*, c = \[^,\}\]*, d = \[^,\}\]*, e = \[^,\}\]*, f = \[^,\}\]*, g = \[^,\}\]*, h = \[^,\}\]*}"
+ "{a = \[^,\}\]*, b = \[^,\}\]*, c = \[^,\}\]*, d = \[^,\}\]*, e = \[^,\}\]*, f = \[^,\}\]*, g = \[^,\}\]*, h = \[^,\}\]*, i = \[^,\}\]*}"
+ "{a = \[^,\}\]*, b = \[^,\}\]*, c = \[^,\}\]*, d = \[^,\}\]*, e = \[^,\}\]*, f = \[^,\}\]*, g = \[^,\}\]*, h = \[^,\}\]*, i = \[^,\}\]*, j = \[^,\}\]*}"
+ "{a = \[^,\}\]*, b = \[^,\}\]*, c = \[^,\}\]*, d = \[^,\}\]*, e = \[^,\}\]*, f = \[^,\}\]*, g = \[^,\}\]*, h = \[^,\}\]*, i = \[^,\}\]*, j = \[^,\}\]*, k = \[^,\}\]*}"
+ "{a = \[^,\}\]*, b = \[^,\}\]*, c = \[^,\}\]*, d = \[^,\}\]*, e = \[^,\}\]*, f = \[^,\}\]*, g = \[^,\}\]*, h = \[^,\}\]*, i = \[^,\}\]*, j = \[^,\}\]*, k = \[^,\}\]*, l = \[^,\}\]*}"
+ "{a = \[^,\}\]*, b = \[^,\}\]*, c = \[^,\}\]*, d = \[^,\}\]*, e = \[^,\}\]*, f = \[^,\}\]*, g = \[^,\}\]*, h = \[^,\}\]*, i = \[^,\}\]*, j = \[^,\}\]*, k = \[^,\}\]*, l = \[^,\}\]*, m = \[^,\}\]*}"
+ "{a = \[^,\}\]*, b = \[^,\}\]*, c = \[^,\}\]*, d = \[^,\}\]*, e = \[^,\}\]*, f = \[^,\}\]*, g = \[^,\}\]*, h = \[^,\}\]*, i = \[^,\}\]*, j = \[^,\}\]*, k = \[^,\}\]*, l = \[^,\}\]*, m = \[^,\}\]*, n = \[^,\}\]*}"
+ "{a = \[^,\}\]*, b = \[^,\}\]*, c = \[^,\}\]*, d = \[^,\}\]*, e = \[^,\}\]*, f = \[^,\}\]*, g = \[^,\}\]*, h = \[^,\}\]*, i = \[^,\}\]*, j = \[^,\}\]*, k = \[^,\}\]*, l = \[^,\}\]*, m = \[^,\}\]*, n = \[^,\}\]*, o = \[^,\}\]*}"
+ "{a = \[^,\}\]*, b = \[^,\}\]*, c = \[^,\}\]*, d = \[^,\}\]*, e = \[^,\}\]*, f = \[^,\}\]*, g = \[^,\}\]*, h = \[^,\}\]*, i = \[^,\}\]*, j = \[^,\}\]*, k = \[^,\}\]*, l = \[^,\}\]*, m = \[^,\}\]*, n = \[^,\}\]*, o = \[^,\}\]*, p = \[^,\}\]*}"
+ "{a = \[^,\}\]*, b = \[^,\}\]*, c = \[^,\}\]*, d = \[^,\}\]*, e = \[^,\}\]*, f = \[^,\}\]*, g = \[^,\}\]*, h = \[^,\}\]*, i = \[^,\}\]*, j = \[^,\}\]*, k = \[^,\}\]*, l = \[^,\}\]*, m = \[^,\}\]*, n = \[^,\}\]*, o = \[^,\}\]*, p = \[^,\}\]*, q = \[^,\}\]*}"
+ } $n]
+}
+
# Given N (0..25), return the corresponding alphabetic letter in lower
# or upper case. This is ment to be i18n proof.
set tests "call $n ${testfile}"
# Call fun${n}, checking the printed return-value.
- setup_kfails structs-*tld* i*86-*-* gdb/1447
- setup_kfails structs-*tld* sparc64-*-* gdb/1447
- setup_kfails structs-*tld* sparc*-*-solaris2* gdb/1447
- setup_compiler_kfails structs-tc-* gcc-3-3 "DWARF 2" i*86-*-* gdb/1455
+ setup_compiler_kfails structs-tc-tll gcc-3-3-* "DWARF 2" i*86-*-* gdb/1455
+ setup_compiler_kfails structs-tc-td gcc-3-3-* "DWARF 2" i*86-*-* gdb/1455
gdb_test "p/c fun${n}()" "[foo ${n}]" "p/c fun<n>(); ${tests}"
# Check that GDB can always pass a structure to an inferior function.
# examining that global to confirm that the value is as expected.
gdb_test "call Fun${n}(foo${n})" "" "call Fun<n>(foo<n>); ${tests}"
- setup_kfails structs-*tld* i*86-*-* gdb/1447
- setup_kfails structs-*tld* sparc64-*-* gdb/1447
- setup_kfails structs-*tld* sparc*-*-solaris2* gdb/1447
- setup_compiler_kfails structs-tc-* gcc-3-3 "DWARF 2" i*86-*-* gdb/1455
+ setup_compiler_kfails structs-tc-tll gcc-3-3-* "DWARF 2" i*86-*-* gdb/1455
+ setup_compiler_kfails structs-tc-td gcc-3-3-* "DWARF 2" i*86-*-* gdb/1455
gdb_test "p/c L${n}" [foo ${n}] "p/c L<n>; ${tests}"
}
"advance to fun<n> for return; ${tests}"
# Check that the program invalidated the relevant global.
- setup_kfails structs-tld i*86-*-* gdb/1447
- setup_kfails structs-tld sparc64-*-* gdb/1447
- setup_kfails structs-tld sparc*-*-solaris2* gdb/1447
gdb_test "p/c L${n}" " = [zed $n]" "zed L<n> for return; ${tests}"
# Force the "return". This checks that the return is always
# The test is writen so that it only reports one FAIL/PASS for the
# entire operation. The value returned is checked further down.
- # "return_value_unknown", if non-empty, records why GDB realised
- # that it didn't know where the return value was.
+ # "return_value_known", if non-zero, indicates that GDB knew where
+ # the return value was located.
set test "return foo<n>; ${tests}"
- set return_value_unknown 0
+ set return_value_known 1
set return_value_unimplemented 0
gdb_test_multiple "return foo${n}" "${test}" {
-re "The location" {
# Ulgh, a struct return, remember this (still need prompt).
- set return_value_unknown 1
+ set return_value_known 0
exp_continue
}
-re "A structure or union" {
# Ulgh, a struct return, remember this (still need prompt).
- set return_value_unknown 1
+ set return_value_known 0
# Double ulgh. Architecture doesn't use return_value and
# hence hasn't implemented small structure return.
set return_value_unimplemented 1
# Check that the return-value is as expected. At this stage we're
# just checking that GDB has returned a value consistent with
- # "return_value_unknown" set above.
+ # "return_value_known" set above.
+ #
+ # Note that, when return_value_known is false, we can't make any
+ # assumptions at all about the value L<n>:
+ #
+ # - If the caller passed the address of L<n> directly as fun<n>'s
+ # return value buffer, then L<n> will be unchanged, because we
+ # forced fun<n> to return before it could store anything in it.
+ #
+ # - If the caller passed the address of some temporary buffer to
+ # fun<n>, and then copied the buffer into L<n>, then L<n> will
+ # have been overwritten with whatever garbage was in the
+ # uninitialized buffer.
+ #
+ # - However, if the temporary buffer just happened to have the
+ # "right" value of foo<n> in it, then L<n> will, in fact, have
+ # the value you'd expect to see if the 'return' had worked!
+ # This has actually been observed to happen on the Renesas M32C.
+ #
+ # So, really, anything is acceptable unless return_value_known is
+ # true.
set test "value foo<n> returned; ${tests}"
- setup_kfails structs-*tld* i*86-*-* gdb/1447
- setup_kfails structs-*tld* sparc64-*-* gdb/1447
- setup_kfails structs-*tld* sparc*-*-solaris2* gdb/1447
gdb_test_multiple "p/c L${n}" "${test}" {
-re " = [foo ${n}].*${gdb_prompt} $" {
- if $return_value_unknown {
- # This contradicts the above claim that GDB didn't
- # know the location of the return-value.
- fail "${test}"
- } else {
- pass "${test}"
- }
+ # This answer is okay regardless of whether GDB claims to
+ # have set the return value: if it did, then this is what
+ # we expected; and if it didn't, then any answer is okay.
+ pass "${test}"
}
- -re " = [zed ${n}].*${gdb_prompt} $" {
- if $return_value_unknown {
- # The struct return case. Since any modification
- # would be by reference, and that can't happen, the
- # value should be unmodified and hence Z is expected.
- # Is this a reasonable assumption?
- pass "${test}"
- } else {
+ -re " = [any $n].*${gdb_prompt} $" {
+ if $return_value_known {
# This contradicts the above claim that GDB knew
- # the location of the return-value.
+ # the location of the return value.
fail "${test}"
+ } else {
+ # We expected L${n} to be set to garbage, so any
+ # answer is acceptable.
+ pass "${test}"
}
}
-re ".*${gdb_prompt} $" {
"advance to fun<n> for finish; ${tests}"
# Check that the program invalidated the relevant global.
- setup_kfails structs-tld i*86-*-* gdb/1447
- setup_kfails structs-tld sparc64-*-* gdb/1447
- setup_kfails structs-tld sparc*-*-solaris2* gdb/1447
gdb_test "p/c L${n}" " = [zed $n]" "zed L<n> for finish; ${tests}"
- # Finish the function, set 'finish_value_unknown" to non-empty if the
- # return-value was not found.
+ # Finish the function, set 'finish_value_known" to non-empty if
+ # the return-value was found.
+
set test "finish foo<n>; ${tests}"
- set finish_value_unknown 0
+ set finish_value_known 1
gdb_test_multiple "finish" "${test}" {
-re "Value returned is .*${gdb_prompt} $" {
pass "${test}"
}
-re "Cannot determine contents.*${gdb_prompt} $" {
# Expected bad value. For the moment this is ok.
- set finish_value_unknown 1
+ set finish_value_known 0
pass "${test}"
}
}
# "p/c". If no return value was found, the 'Z' from the previous
# check that the variable was cleared, is printed.
set test "value foo<n> finished; ${tests}"
- setup_kfails structs-*tld* i*86-*-* gdb/1447
- setup_kfails structs-*tld* sparc64-*-* gdb/1447
- setup_kfails structs-*tld* sparc*-*-solaris2* gdb/1447
gdb_test_multiple "p/c" "${test}" {
-re "[foo ${n}]\[\r\n\]+${gdb_prompt} $" {
- if $finish_value_unknown {
+ if $finish_value_known {
+ pass "${test}"
+ } else {
# This contradicts the above claim that GDB didn't
# know the location of the return-value.
fail "${test}"
- } else {
- pass "${test}"
}
}
-re "[zed ${n}]\[\r\n\]+${gdb_prompt} $" {
# The value didn't get found. This is "expected".
- if $finish_value_unknown {
- pass "${test}"
- } else {
+ if $finish_value_known {
# This contradicts the above claim that GDB did
# know the location of the return-value.
fail "${test}"
+ } else {
+ pass "${test}"
}
}
}
# Finally, check that "return" and finish" have consistent
# behavior.
- # Since both "return" and "finish" use equivalent "which
- # return-value convention" logic, both commands should have
- # identical can/can-not find return-value messages.
+ # Since "finish" works in more cases than "return" (see
+ # RETURN_VALUE_ABI_RETURNS_ADDRESS and
+ # RETURN_VALUE_ABI_PRESERVES_ADDRESS), the "return" value being
+ # known implies that the "finish" value is known (but not the
+ # reverse).
- # Note that since "call" and "finish" use common code paths, a
- # failure here is a strong indicator of problems with "store
- # return-value" code paths. Suggest looking at "return_value"
- # when investigating a fix.
-
- set test "return and finish use same convention; ${tests}"
- if {$finish_value_unknown == $return_value_unknown} {
- pass "${test}"
- } else {
+ set test "return value known implies finish value known; ${tests}"
+ if {$return_value_known && ! $finish_value_known} {
kfail gdb/1444 "${test}"
+ } else {
+ pass "${test}"
}
}
projects / thirdparty / binutils-gdb.git / blobdiff