URL
https://opencores.org/ocsvn/openrisc/openrisc/trunk
Subversion Repositories openrisc
[/] [openrisc/] [trunk/] [gnu-old/] [gdb-6.8/] [gdb/] [testsuite/] [gdb.hp/] [gdb.base-hp/] [callfwmall.exp] - Rev 840
Compare with Previous | Blame | View Log
# Copyright 1997, 1998, 1999, 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 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, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. */# Please email any bugs, comments, and/or additions to this file to:# bug-gdb@prep.ai.mit.edu# This file was written by Fred Fish. (fnf@cygnus.com)# These tests are the same as those in callfuncs.exp, except that the# test program here does not call malloc.## "What in the world does malloc have to do with calling functions in# the inferior?" Well, nothing. GDB's ability to invoke a function# in the inferior program works just fine in programs that have no# malloc function available. It doesn't rely on the inferior's# malloc, directly or indirectly. It just uses the inferior's stack# space.## "Then what's the point of this test file?" Well, it just so happens# that this file, in addition to testing inferior function calls, also# tests GDB's ability to evaluate string literals (like "string 1" and# "string 2" in the tests below). Evaluating *those* sorts of# expressions does require malloc.## (As an extension to C, GDB also has a syntax for literal arrays of# anything, not just characters. For example, the expression# {2,3,4,5} (which appears in the tests below) evaluates to an array# of four ints. So rather than talking just about string literals,# we'll use the broader term "array literals".)## Now, in this file, we only evaluate array literals when we're about# to pass them to a function, but don't be confused --- this is a red# herring. You can evaluate "abcdef" even if you're not about to pass# that to a function, and doing so requires malloc even if you're just# going to store a pointer to it in a variable, like this:## (gdb) ptype s# type = char *# (gdb) set variable s = "abcdef"## According to C's rules for evaluating expressions, arrays are# converted into pointers to their first element. This means that, in# order to evaluate an expression like "abcdef", GDB needs to actually# find some memory in the inferior we can plop the characters into;# then we use that memory's address as the address of our array# literal. GDB finds this memory by calling the inferior's malloc# function, if it has one. So, evaluating an array literal depends on# performing an inferior function call, but not vice versa. (GDB# can't just allocate the space on the stack; the pointer may remain# live long after the current frame has been popped.)## "But, if evaluating array literals requires malloc, what's the point# of testing that GDB can do so in a program that doesn't have malloc?# It can't work!" On most systems, that's right, but HP-UX has some# sort of dynamic linking magic that ensures that *every* program has# malloc. So on HP-UX, GDB can evaluate array literals even in# inferior programs that don't use malloc. That's why this test is in# gdb.hp.## This file has, for some reason, led to well more than its fair share# of misunderstandings about the relationship between array literal# expressions and inferior function calls. Folks talk as if you can# only evaluate array literals when you're about to pass them to a# function. I think they're assuming that, since GDB is constructing# a new frame on the inferior's stack (correct), it's going to use# that space for the array literals (incorrect). Remember that those# array literals may need to be live long after the inferior function# call returns; GDB can't tell.## What makes the confusion worse is that there *is* a relationship# between array literals and inferior function calls --- GDB uses# inferior function calls to evaluate array literals. But many people# jump to other, incorrect conclusions about this.if $tracelevel then {strace $tracelevel}set prms_id 0set bug_id 0if { [skip_hp_tests] } then { continue }set testfile "callfwmall"set srcfile ${testfile}.cset binfile ${objdir}/${subdir}/${testfile}if { [gdb_compile "${srcdir}/${subdir}/${srcfile}" "${binfile}" executable {debug}] != "" } {untested callfwmall.expreturn -1}# Create and source the file that provides information about the compiler# used to compile the test case.if [get_compiler_info ${binfile}] {return -1;}if {$hp_aCC_compiler} {set prototypes 1} else {set prototypes 0}# Some targets can't call functions, so don't even bother with this# test.if [target_info exists gdb,cannot_call_functions] {setup_xfail "*-*-*" 2416fail "This target can not call functions"continue}# Set the current language to C. This counts as a test. If it# fails, then we skip the other tests.proc set_lang_c {} {global gdb_promptsend_gdb "set language c\n"gdb_expect {-re ".*$gdb_prompt $" {}timeout { fail "set language c (timeout)" ; return 0 }}send_gdb "show language\n"gdb_expect {-re ".* source language is \"c\".*$gdb_prompt $" {pass "set language to \"c\""return 1}-re ".*$gdb_prompt $" {fail "setting language to \"c\""return 0}timeout {fail "can't show language (timeout)"return 0}}}# FIXME: Before calling this proc, we should probably verify that# we can call inferior functions and get a valid integral value# returned.# Note that it is OK to check for 0 or 1 as the returned values, because C# specifies that the numeric value of a relational or logical expression# (computed in the inferior) is 1 for true and 0 for false.proc do_function_calls {} {global prototypesglobal gcc_compiledglobal gdb_prompt# We need to up this because this can be really slow on some boards.set timeout 60;gdb_test "p t_char_values(0,0)" " = 0"gdb_test "p t_char_values('a','b')" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_char_values(char_val1,char_val2)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_char_values('a',char_val2)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_char_values(char_val1,'b')" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_short_values(0,0)" " = 0"gdb_test "p t_short_values(10,-23)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_short_values(short_val1,short_val2)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_short_values(10,short_val2)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_short_values(short_val1,-23)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_int_values(0,0)" " = 0"gdb_test "p t_int_values(87,-26)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_int_values(int_val1,int_val2)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_int_values(87,int_val2)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_int_values(int_val1,-26)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_long_values(0,0)" " = 0"gdb_test "p t_long_values(789,-321)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_long_values(long_val1,long_val2)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_long_values(789,long_val2)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_long_values(long_val1,-321)" " = 1"if ![target_info exists gdb,skip_float_tests] {gdb_test "p t_float_values(0.0,0.0)" " = 0"# These next four tests fail on the mn10300.# The first value is passed in regs, the other in memory.# Gcc emits different stabs for the two parameters; the first is# claimed to be a float, the second a double.# dbxout.c in gcc claims this is the desired behavior.setup_xfail "mn10300-*-*"gdb_test "p t_float_values(3.14159,-2.3765)" " = 1"setup_xfail "mn10300-*-*"gdb_test "p t_float_values(float_val1,float_val2)" " = 1"setup_xfail "mn10300-*-*"gdb_test "p t_float_values(3.14159,float_val2)" " = 1"setup_xfail "mn10300-*-*"gdb_test "p t_float_values(float_val1,-2.3765)" " = 1"# Test passing of arguments which might not be widened.gdb_test "p t_float_values2(0.0,0.0)" " = 0"# Although PR 5318 mentions SunOS specifically, this seems# to be a generic problem on quite a few platforms.if $prototypes then {setup_xfail "sparc-*-*" "mips*-*-*" 5318if {!$gcc_compiled} then {setup_xfail "alpha-dec-osf2*" "i*86-*-sysv4*" 5318}}gdb_test "p t_float_values2(3.14159,float_val2)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_small_values(1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10)" " = 55"gdb_test "p t_double_values(0.0,0.0)" " = 0"gdb_test "p t_double_values(45.654,-67.66)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_double_values(double_val1,double_val2)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_double_values(45.654,double_val2)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_double_values(double_val1,-67.66)" " = 1"}gdb_test "p t_string_values(string_val2,string_val1)" " = 0"gdb_test "p t_string_values(string_val1,string_val2)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_string_values(\"string 1\",\"string 2\")" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_string_values(\"string 1\",string_val2)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_string_values(string_val1,\"string 2\")" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_char_array_values(char_array_val2,char_array_val1)" " = 0"gdb_test "p t_char_array_values(char_array_val1,char_array_val2)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_char_array_values(\"carray 1\",\"carray 2\")" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_char_array_values(\"carray 1\",char_array_val2)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_char_array_values(char_array_val1,\"carray 2\")" " = 1"gdb_test "p doubleit(4)" " = 8"gdb_test "p add(4,5)" " = 9"gdb_test "p t_func_values(func_val2,func_val1)" " = 0"gdb_test "p t_func_values(func_val1,func_val2)" " = 1"# On the rs6000, we need to pass the address of the trampoline routine,# not the address of add itself. I don't know how to go from add to# the address of the trampoline. Similar problems exist on the HPPA,# and in fact can present an unsolvable problem as the stubs may not# even exist in the user's program. We've slightly recoded t_func_values# to avoid such problems in the common case. This may or may not help# the RS6000.setup_xfail "rs6000*-*-*"if {![istarget hppa*-*-hpux*]} then {gdb_test "p t_func_values(add,func_val2)" " = 1"}setup_xfail "rs6000*-*-*"if {![istarget hppa*-*-hpux*]} then {gdb_test "p t_func_values(func_val1,doubleit)" " = 1"}gdb_test "p t_call_add(func_val1,3,4)" " = 7"setup_xfail "rs6000*-*-*"if {![istarget hppa*-*-hpux*]} then {gdb_test "p t_call_add(add,3,4)" " = 7"}gdb_test "p t_enum_value1(enumval1)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_enum_value1(enum_val1)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_enum_value1(enum_val2)" " = 0"gdb_test "p t_enum_value2(enumval2)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_enum_value2(enum_val2)" " = 1"gdb_test "p t_enum_value2(enum_val1)" " = 0"gdb_test "p sum_args(1,{2})" " = 2"gdb_test "p sum_args(2,{2,3})" " = 5"gdb_test "p sum_args(3,{2,3,4})" " = 9"gdb_test "p sum_args(4,{2,3,4,5})" " = 14"gdb_test "p sum10 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)" " = 55"gdb_test "p t_structs_c(struct_val1)" "= 120 'x'" \"call inferior func with struct - returns char"gdb_test "p t_structs_s(struct_val1)" "= 87" \"call inferior func with struct - returns short"gdb_test "p t_structs_i(struct_val1)" "= 76" \"call inferior func with struct - returns int"gdb_test "p t_structs_l(struct_val1)" "= 51" \"call inferior func with struct - returns long"gdb_test "p t_structs_f(struct_val1)" "= 2.12.*" \"call inferior func with struct - returns float"gdb_test "p t_structs_d(struct_val1)" "= 9.87.*" \"call inferior func with struct - returns double"gdb_test "p t_structs_a(struct_val1)" "= (.unsigned char .. )?\"foo\"" \"call inferior func with struct - returns char *"}# Start with a fresh gdb.gdb_exitgdb_startgdb_reinitialize_dir $srcdir/$subdirgdb_load ${binfile}gdb_test "set print sevenbit-strings" ""gdb_test "set print address off" ""gdb_test "set width 0" ""if { $hp_aCC_compiler } {# Do not set language explicitly to 'C'. This will cause aCC# tests to fail because promotion rules are different. Just let# the language be set to the default.if { ![runto_main] } {gdb_suppress_tests;}gdb_test "set overload-resolution 0" ".*"} else {if { ![set_lang_c] } {gdb_suppress_tests;} else {if { ![runto_main] } {gdb_suppress_tests;}}}gdb_test "next" ".*"do_function_callsreturn 0
