From 9a9e394b05a841bdd9163f280d7ef19cc65634d6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tom Tromey Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 10:21:52 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] Fix gdb.ada/vla.exp PR ada/24539 concerns a test failure in gdb.ada/vla.exp. The problem here is that different versions of Gnat emit the structure's fields in different orders -- with the order currently failing actually being the correct one. Joel pointed out that this can be fixed by simply adding the No_Component_Reordering pragma to the type in question, which is what this patch does. I've reported a Gnat compiler bug internally in hopes of getting the underlying problem fixed. gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog 2019-06-14 Tom Tromey PR ada/24539: * gdb.ada/vla.exp: Update tests. * gdb.ada/vla/vla.adb (Record_Type): Use No_Component_Reordering pragma. --- gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog | 7 +++++++ gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/vla.exp | 8 ++++---- gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/vla/vla.adb | 5 +++++ 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog b/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog index 37e327d9f2a..bd48c9212dc 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog +++ b/gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +2019-06-14 Tom Tromey + + PR ada/24539: + * gdb.ada/vla.exp: Update tests. + * gdb.ada/vla/vla.adb (Record_Type): Use No_Component_Reordering + pragma. + 2019-06-13 Pedro Alves * gdb.base/settings.exp (test-integer): Test junk after diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/vla.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/vla.exp index 7e10e9b8223..c03d1cc929b 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/vla.exp +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/vla.exp @@ -29,10 +29,10 @@ set bp_location [gdb_get_line_number "Set breakpoint here" ${testdir}/vla.adb] runto "vla.adb:$bp_location" gdb_test "print r00" \ - "= \\(l1 => 0, l2 => 0, i1 => 1, i2 => 2, i3 => 3, a1 => \\(\\), a2 => \\(\\)\\)" + "= \\(l1 => 0, l2 => 0, i1 => 1, a1 => \\(\\), i2 => 2, a2 => \\(\\), i3 => 3\\)" gdb_test "print r01" \ - "= \\(l1 => 0, l2 => 1, i1 => 1, i2 => 2, i3 => 3, a1 => \\(\\), a2 => \\(20\\)\\)" + "= \\(l1 => 0, l2 => 1, i1 => 1, a1 => \\(\\), i2 => 2, a2 => \\(20\\), i3 => 3\\)" gdb_test "print r10" \ - "= \\(l1 => 1, l2 => 0, i1 => 1, i2 => 2, i3 => 3, a1 => \\(10\\), a2 => \\(\\)\\)" + "= \\(l1 => 1, l2 => 0, i1 => 1, a1 => \\(10\\), i2 => 2, a2 => \\(\\), i3 => 3\\)" gdb_test "print r22" \ - "= \\(l1 => 2, l2 => 2, i1 => 1, i2 => 2, i3 => 3, a1 => \\(10, 10\\), a2 => \\(20, 20\\)\\)" + "= \\(l1 => 2, l2 => 2, i1 => 1, a1 => \\(10, 10\\), i2 => 2, a2 => \\(20, 20\\), i3 => 3\\)" diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/vla/vla.adb b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/vla/vla.adb index 2b6cc8a1114..1986fb194f9 100644 --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/vla/vla.adb +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.ada/vla/vla.adb @@ -23,6 +23,11 @@ procedure Vla is I3 : Integer; end record; + -- Some versions of GCC emit the members in the incorrect order. + -- Since this isn't relevant to the bug at hand, disable + -- reordering to get consistent results. + pragma No_Component_Reordering (Record_Type); + procedure Process (R : Record_Type) is begin null; -- 2.39.2