mirror of
https://github.com/espressif/binutils-gdb.git
synced 2025-06-20 01:50:24 +08:00

I noticed that the gdb.compile/compile-ops.exp test was failing when run with Clang as the compiler. This test makes use of the DWARF assembler, and, it turns out, uses a technique which is not portable to Clang. This problem is described in the comment on the function_range proc in lib/dwarf.exp, the explanation is: # If the compiler is gcc, we can do the following to get function start # and end address too: # # asm ("func_start: .globl func_start"); # static void func (void) {} # asm ("func_end: .globl func_end"); # # however, this isn't portable, because other compilers, such as clang, # may not guarantee the order of global asms and function. The code # becomes: # # asm ("func_start: .globl func_start"); # asm ("func_end: .globl func_end"); # static void func (void) {} These start/end labels are used for computing the function start, end, and length. The portable solution is to place a label within the function, like this: # int main (void) # { # asm ("main_label: .globl main_label"); # return 0; # } And make use of 'proc function_range' (from lib/dwarf.exp). So, that's what I do in this commit. One consequence of this change is that we need to compile the source file, and have it loaded into a GDB session, before calling function_range, so I've added an early call to prepare_for_testing. Additionally, this test script was generating the DWARF assembler into a file called gdbjit-ops.S, I suspect a copy and paste issue there, so I've switched this to use compile-ops-dbg.S instead, which is more inline with what other DWARF assembler tests do. The only other change, which might be a problem, is that I also deleted these two lines from the source file: asm (".section \".text\""); asm (".balign 8"); These lines were setting the alignment of the .text section. What I don't know is whether this was significant or not. If it is significant, then I can't see why. On x86-64, the test still passes fine without these lines, but that doesn't mean the test wont start failing on some other architecture. Still, I figure, lets remove them, then, if/when we find a test that starts failing, we can add the lines back, along with an explanation for why the extra alignment is required. But, if people would prefer to be more conservative, then I'm happy to just add the lines back. Reviewed-By: Lancelot SIX <lancelot.six@amd.com>
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
README for GNU development tools This directory contains various GNU compilers, assemblers, linkers, debuggers, etc., plus their support routines, definitions, and documentation. If you are receiving this as part of a GDB release, see the file gdb/README. If with a binutils release, see binutils/README; if with a libg++ release, see libg++/README, etc. That'll give you info about this package -- supported targets, how to use it, how to report bugs, etc. It is now possible to automatically configure and build a variety of tools with one command. To build all of the tools contained herein, run the ``configure'' script here, e.g.: ./configure make To install them (by default in /usr/local/bin, /usr/local/lib, etc), then do: make install (If the configure script can't determine your type of computer, give it the name as an argument, for instance ``./configure sun4''. You can use the script ``config.sub'' to test whether a name is recognized; if it is, config.sub translates it to a triplet specifying CPU, vendor, and OS.) If you have more than one compiler on your system, it is often best to explicitly set CC in the environment before running configure, and to also set CC when running make. For example (assuming sh/bash/ksh): CC=gcc ./configure make A similar example using csh: setenv CC gcc ./configure make Much of the code and documentation enclosed is copyright by the Free Software Foundation, Inc. See the file COPYING or COPYING.LIB in the various directories, for a description of the GNU General Public License terms under which you can copy the files. REPORTING BUGS: Again, see gdb/README, binutils/README, etc., for info on where and how to report problems.
Description
Languages
C
51.8%
Makefile
22.4%
Assembly
12.3%
C++
6%
Roff
1.4%
Other
5.4%