]> git.ipfire.org Git - thirdparty/binutils-gdb.git/blame - gdb/testsuite/gdb.hp/gdb.base-hp/callfwmall.exp
Update years in copyright notice for the GDB files.
[thirdparty/binutils-gdb.git] / gdb / testsuite / gdb.hp / gdb.base-hp / callfwmall.exp
CommitLineData
8acc9f48 1# Copyright 1997-2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
daf3f280
JM
2
3# This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
4# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
e22f8b7c 5# the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or
daf3f280 6# (at your option) any later version.
e22f8b7c 7#
daf3f280
JM
8# This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
9# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
10# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
11# GNU General Public License for more details.
e22f8b7c 12#
daf3f280 13# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
e22f8b7c 14# along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. */
daf3f280 15
daf3f280
JM
16# This file was written by Fred Fish. (fnf@cygnus.com)
17
37225f62
JB
18# These tests are the same as those in callfuncs.exp, except that the
19# test program here does not call malloc.
20#
21# "What in the world does malloc have to do with calling functions in
22# the inferior?" Well, nothing. GDB's ability to invoke a function
23# in the inferior program works just fine in programs that have no
24# malloc function available. It doesn't rely on the inferior's
25# malloc, directly or indirectly. It just uses the inferior's stack
26# space.
27#
28# "Then what's the point of this test file?" Well, it just so happens
29# that this file, in addition to testing inferior function calls, also
30# tests GDB's ability to evaluate string literals (like "string 1" and
31# "string 2" in the tests below). Evaluating *those* sorts of
32# expressions does require malloc.
33#
34# (As an extension to C, GDB also has a syntax for literal arrays of
35# anything, not just characters. For example, the expression
36# {2,3,4,5} (which appears in the tests below) evaluates to an array
37# of four ints. So rather than talking just about string literals,
38# we'll use the broader term "array literals".)
39#
40# Now, in this file, we only evaluate array literals when we're about
41# to pass them to a function, but don't be confused --- this is a red
42# herring. You can evaluate "abcdef" even if you're not about to pass
43# that to a function, and doing so requires malloc even if you're just
44# going to store a pointer to it in a variable, like this:
45#
46# (gdb) ptype s
47# type = char *
48# (gdb) set variable s = "abcdef"
49#
50# According to C's rules for evaluating expressions, arrays are
51# converted into pointers to their first element. This means that, in
52# order to evaluate an expression like "abcdef", GDB needs to actually
53# find some memory in the inferior we can plop the characters into;
54# then we use that memory's address as the address of our array
55# literal. GDB finds this memory by calling the inferior's malloc
56# function, if it has one. So, evaluating an array literal depends on
57# performing an inferior function call, but not vice versa. (GDB
58# can't just allocate the space on the stack; the pointer may remain
59# live long after the current frame has been popped.)
60#
61# "But, if evaluating array literals requires malloc, what's the point
62# of testing that GDB can do so in a program that doesn't have malloc?
63# It can't work!" On most systems, that's right, but HP-UX has some
64# sort of dynamic linking magic that ensures that *every* program has
65# malloc. So on HP-UX, GDB can evaluate array literals even in
66# inferior programs that don't use malloc. That's why this test is in
67# gdb.hp.
68#
69# This file has, for some reason, led to well more than its fair share
70# of misunderstandings about the relationship between array literal
71# expressions and inferior function calls. Folks talk as if you can
72# only evaluate array literals when you're about to pass them to a
73# function. I think they're assuming that, since GDB is constructing
74# a new frame on the inferior's stack (correct), it's going to use
75# that space for the array literals (incorrect). Remember that those
76# array literals may need to be live long after the inferior function
77# call returns; GDB can't tell.
78#
79# What makes the confusion worse is that there *is* a relationship
80# between array literals and inferior function calls --- GDB uses
81# inferior function calls to evaluate array literals. But many people
82# jump to other, incorrect conclusions about this.
daf3f280 83
daf3f280 84
37225f62
JB
85if { [skip_hp_tests] } then { continue }
86
daf3f280
JM
87set testfile "callfwmall"
88set srcfile ${testfile}.c
89set binfile ${objdir}/${subdir}/${testfile}
90
91if { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable {debug}] != "" } {
b60f0898
JB
92 untested callfwmall.exp
93 return -1
daf3f280
JM
94}
95
96# Create and source the file that provides information about the compiler
97# used to compile the test case.
98
4c93b1db 99if [get_compiler_info] {
daf3f280
JM
100 return -1;
101}
102
103if {$hp_aCC_compiler} {
104 set prototypes 1
105} else {
106 set prototypes 0
107}
108
109
9fbfe2dc
AC
110# Some targets can't call functions, so don't even bother with this
111# test.
daf3f280
JM
112if [target_info exists gdb,cannot_call_functions] {
113 setup_xfail "*-*-*" 2416
114 fail "This target can not call functions"
115 continue
116}
117
118# Set the current language to C. This counts as a test. If it
119# fails, then we skip the other tests.
120
121proc set_lang_c {} {
122 global gdb_prompt
123
124 send_gdb "set language c\n"
125 gdb_expect {
126 -re ".*$gdb_prompt $" {}
127 timeout { fail "set language c (timeout)" ; return 0 }
128 }
129
130 send_gdb "show language\n"
131 gdb_expect {
132 -re ".* source language is \"c\".*$gdb_prompt $" {
133 pass "set language to \"c\""
134 return 1
135 }
136 -re ".*$gdb_prompt $" {
137 fail "setting language to \"c\""
138 return 0
139 }
140 timeout {
141 fail "can't show language (timeout)"
142 return 0
143 }
144 }
145}
146
147# FIXME: Before calling this proc, we should probably verify that
148# we can call inferior functions and get a valid integral value
149# returned.
150# Note that it is OK to check for 0 or 1 as the returned values, because C
151# specifies that the numeric value of a relational or logical expression
152# (computed in the inferior) is 1 for true and 0 for false.
153
154proc do_function_calls {} {
155 global prototypes
156 global gcc_compiled
a0b3c4fd
JM
157 global gdb_prompt
158
daf3f280
JM
159 # We need to up this because this can be really slow on some boards.
160 set timeout 60;
161
162 gdb_test "p t_char_values(0,0)" " = 0"
163 gdb_test "p t_char_values('a','b')" " = 1"
164 gdb_test "p t_char_values(char_val1,char_val2)" " = 1"
165 gdb_test "p t_char_values('a',char_val2)" " = 1"
166 gdb_test "p t_char_values(char_val1,'b')" " = 1"
167
168 gdb_test "p t_short_values(0,0)" " = 0"
169 gdb_test "p t_short_values(10,-23)" " = 1"
170 gdb_test "p t_short_values(short_val1,short_val2)" " = 1"
171 gdb_test "p t_short_values(10,short_val2)" " = 1"
172 gdb_test "p t_short_values(short_val1,-23)" " = 1"
173
174 gdb_test "p t_int_values(0,0)" " = 0"
175 gdb_test "p t_int_values(87,-26)" " = 1"
176 gdb_test "p t_int_values(int_val1,int_val2)" " = 1"
177 gdb_test "p t_int_values(87,int_val2)" " = 1"
178 gdb_test "p t_int_values(int_val1,-26)" " = 1"
179
180 gdb_test "p t_long_values(0,0)" " = 0"
181 gdb_test "p t_long_values(789,-321)" " = 1"
182 gdb_test "p t_long_values(long_val1,long_val2)" " = 1"
183 gdb_test "p t_long_values(789,long_val2)" " = 1"
184 gdb_test "p t_long_values(long_val1,-321)" " = 1"
185
186 if ![target_info exists gdb,skip_float_tests] {
187 gdb_test "p t_float_values(0.0,0.0)" " = 0"
188
189 # These next four tests fail on the mn10300.
190 # The first value is passed in regs, the other in memory.
191 # Gcc emits different stabs for the two parameters; the first is
192 # claimed to be a float, the second a double.
193 # dbxout.c in gcc claims this is the desired behavior.
a0b3c4fd 194 setup_xfail "mn10300-*-*"
daf3f280 195 gdb_test "p t_float_values(3.14159,-2.3765)" " = 1"
a0b3c4fd 196 setup_xfail "mn10300-*-*"
daf3f280 197 gdb_test "p t_float_values(float_val1,float_val2)" " = 1"
a0b3c4fd 198 setup_xfail "mn10300-*-*"
daf3f280 199 gdb_test "p t_float_values(3.14159,float_val2)" " = 1"
a0b3c4fd 200 setup_xfail "mn10300-*-*"
daf3f280
JM
201 gdb_test "p t_float_values(float_val1,-2.3765)" " = 1"
202
203 # Test passing of arguments which might not be widened.
204 gdb_test "p t_float_values2(0.0,0.0)" " = 0"
205
206 # Although PR 5318 mentions SunOS specifically, this seems
207 # to be a generic problem on quite a few platforms.
208 if $prototypes then {
209 setup_xfail "sparc-*-*" "mips*-*-*" 5318
210 if {!$gcc_compiled} then {
211 setup_xfail "alpha-dec-osf2*" "i*86-*-sysv4*" 5318
212 }
213 }
214 gdb_test "p t_float_values2(3.14159,float_val2)" " = 1"
215 gdb_test "p t_small_values(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10)" " = 55"
216
217 gdb_test "p t_double_values(0.0,0.0)" " = 0"
218 gdb_test "p t_double_values(45.654,-67.66)" " = 1"
219 gdb_test "p t_double_values(double_val1,double_val2)" " = 1"
220 gdb_test "p t_double_values(45.654,double_val2)" " = 1"
221 gdb_test "p t_double_values(double_val1,-67.66)" " = 1"
222
223 }
224
225 gdb_test "p t_string_values(string_val2,string_val1)" " = 0"
226 gdb_test "p t_string_values(string_val1,string_val2)" " = 1"
227 gdb_test "p t_string_values(\"string 1\",\"string 2\")" " = 1"
228 gdb_test "p t_string_values(\"string 1\",string_val2)" " = 1"
229 gdb_test "p t_string_values(string_val1,\"string 2\")" " = 1"
230
231 gdb_test "p t_char_array_values(char_array_val2,char_array_val1)" " = 0"
232 gdb_test "p t_char_array_values(char_array_val1,char_array_val2)" " = 1"
233 gdb_test "p t_char_array_values(\"carray 1\",\"carray 2\")" " = 1"
234 gdb_test "p t_char_array_values(\"carray 1\",char_array_val2)" " = 1"
235 gdb_test "p t_char_array_values(char_array_val1,\"carray 2\")" " = 1"
236
237 gdb_test "p doubleit(4)" " = 8"
238 gdb_test "p add(4,5)" " = 9"
239 gdb_test "p t_func_values(func_val2,func_val1)" " = 0"
240 gdb_test "p t_func_values(func_val1,func_val2)" " = 1"
241
242 # On the rs6000, we need to pass the address of the trampoline routine,
243 # not the address of add itself. I don't know how to go from add to
244 # the address of the trampoline. Similar problems exist on the HPPA,
245 # and in fact can present an unsolvable problem as the stubs may not
246 # even exist in the user's program. We've slightly recoded t_func_values
247 # to avoid such problems in the common case. This may or may not help
248 # the RS6000.
249 setup_xfail "rs6000*-*-*"
daf3f280 250
a0b3c4fd 251 if {![istarget hppa*-*-hpux*]} then {
daf3f280
JM
252 gdb_test "p t_func_values(add,func_val2)" " = 1"
253 }
254
255 setup_xfail "rs6000*-*-*"
daf3f280 256
a0b3c4fd 257 if {![istarget hppa*-*-hpux*]} then {
daf3f280
JM
258 gdb_test "p t_func_values(func_val1,doubleit)" " = 1"
259 }
260
261 gdb_test "p t_call_add(func_val1,3,4)" " = 7"
262
263 setup_xfail "rs6000*-*-*"
daf3f280 264
a0b3c4fd 265 if {![istarget hppa*-*-hpux*]} then {
daf3f280
JM
266 gdb_test "p t_call_add(add,3,4)" " = 7"
267 }
268
269 gdb_test "p t_enum_value1(enumval1)" " = 1"
270 gdb_test "p t_enum_value1(enum_val1)" " = 1"
271 gdb_test "p t_enum_value1(enum_val2)" " = 0"
272
273 gdb_test "p t_enum_value2(enumval2)" " = 1"
274 gdb_test "p t_enum_value2(enum_val2)" " = 1"
275 gdb_test "p t_enum_value2(enum_val1)" " = 0"
276
277 gdb_test "p sum_args(1,{2})" " = 2"
278 gdb_test "p sum_args(2,{2,3})" " = 5"
279 gdb_test "p sum_args(3,{2,3,4})" " = 9"
280 gdb_test "p sum_args(4,{2,3,4,5})" " = 14"
281 gdb_test "p sum10 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)" " = 55"
282
283 gdb_test "p t_structs_c(struct_val1)" "= 120 'x'" \
284 "call inferior func with struct - returns char"
285 gdb_test "p t_structs_s(struct_val1)" "= 87" \
286 "call inferior func with struct - returns short"
287 gdb_test "p t_structs_i(struct_val1)" "= 76" \
288 "call inferior func with struct - returns int"
289 gdb_test "p t_structs_l(struct_val1)" "= 51" \
290 "call inferior func with struct - returns long"
daf3f280
JM
291 gdb_test "p t_structs_f(struct_val1)" "= 2.12.*" \
292 "call inferior func with struct - returns float"
daf3f280
JM
293 gdb_test "p t_structs_d(struct_val1)" "= 9.87.*" \
294 "call inferior func with struct - returns double"
295 gdb_test "p t_structs_a(struct_val1)" "= (.unsigned char .. )?\"foo\"" \
296 "call inferior func with struct - returns char *"
297
298}
299
300# Start with a fresh gdb.
301
302gdb_exit
303gdb_start
304gdb_reinitialize_dir $srcdir/$subdir
305gdb_load ${binfile}
306
307gdb_test "set print sevenbit-strings" ""
308gdb_test "set print address off" ""
309gdb_test "set width 0" ""
310
311if { $hp_aCC_compiler } {
312 # Do not set language explicitly to 'C'. This will cause aCC
313 # tests to fail because promotion rules are different. Just let
314 # the language be set to the default.
315
316 if { ![runto_main] } {
317 gdb_suppress_tests;
318 }
319
320 gdb_test "set overload-resolution 0" ".*"
321} else {
322 if { ![set_lang_c] } {
323 gdb_suppress_tests;
324 } else {
325 if { ![runto_main] } {
326 gdb_suppress_tests;
327 }
328 }
329}
330
331gdb_test "next" ".*"
332do_function_calls
333
334return 0