[gdb/exp] Clean up asap in value_print_array_elements

[gdb/exp] Clean up asap in value_print_array_elements

I've been running the test-suite on an i686-linux laptop with 1GB of memory,
and 1 GB of swap, and noticed problems after running gdb.base/huge.exp: gdb
not being able to spawn for a large number of test-cases afterwards.

So I investigated the memory usage, on my usual x86_64-linux development
platform.

The test-case is compiled with -DCRASH_GDB=2097152, so this:
...
static int a[CRASH_GDB], b[CRASH_GDB];
...
with sizeof (int) == 4 represents two arrays of 8MB each.

Say we add a loop around the "print a" command and print space usage
statistics:
...
gdb_test "maint set per-command space on"
for {set i 0} {$i < 100} {incr i} {
    gdb_test "print a"
}
...

This gets us:
...
(gdb) print a^M
$1 = {0 <repeats 2097152 times>}^M
Space used: 478248960 (+469356544 for this command)^M
(gdb) print a^M
$2 = {0 <repeats 2097152 times>}^M
Space used: 486629376 (+8380416 for this command)^M
(gdb) print a^M
$3 = {0 <repeats 2097152 times>}^M
Space used: 495009792 (+8380416 for this command)^M
  ...
(gdb) print a^M
$100 = {0 <repeats 2097152 times>}^M
Space used: 1308721152 (+8380416 for this command)^M
...

In other words, we start out at 8MB, and the first print costs us about 469MB,
and subsequent prints 8MB, which accumulates to 1.3 GB usage. [ On the
i686-linux laptop, the first print costs us 335MB. ]

The subsequent 8MBs are consistent with the values being saved into the value
history, but the usage for the initial print seems somewhat excessive.

There is a PR open about needing sparse representation of large arrays
(PR8819), but this memory usage points to an independent problem.

The function value_print_array_elements contains a scoped_value_mark to free
allocated values in the outer loop, but it doesn't prevent the inner loop from
allocating a lot of values.

Fix this by adding a scoped_value_mark in the inner loop, after which we have:
...
(gdb) print a^M
$1 = {0 <repeats 2097152 times>}^M
Space used: 8892416 (+0 for this command)^M
(gdb) print a^M
$2 = {0 <repeats 2097152 times>}^M
Space used: 8892416 (+0 for this command)^M
(gdb) print a^M
$3 = {0 <repeats 2097152 times>}^M
Space used: 8892416 (+0 for this command)^M
  ...
(gdb) print a^M
$100 = {0 <repeats 2097152 times>}^M
Space used: 8892416 (+0 for this command)^M
...

Note that the +0 here just means that the mallocs did not trigger an sbrk.
This is dependent on malloc (which can use either mmap or sbrk or some
pre-allocated memory) and will likely vary between different tunings, versions
and implementations, so this does not give us a reliable way detect the
problem in a minimal way.

A more reliable way of detecting the problem is:
...
 void
 value_free_to_mark (const struct value *mark)
 {
+  size_t before = all_values.size ();
   auto iter = std::find (all_values.begin (), all_values.end (), mark);
   if (iter == all_values.end ())
     all_values.clear ();
   else
     all_values.erase (iter + 1, all_values.end ());
+  size_t after = all_values.size ();
+  if (before - after >= 1024)
+    fprintf (stderr, "value_free_to_mark freed %zu items\n", before - after);
...
which without the fix tells us:
...
+print a
value_free_to_mark freed 2097152 items
$1 = {0 <repeats 2097152 times>}
...

Fix a similar problem for Fortran:
...
+print array1
value_free_to_mark freed 4194303 items
$1 = (0, <repeats 2097152 times>)
...
in fortran_array_printer_impl::process_element.

The problem also exists for Ada:
...
+print Arr
value_free_to_mark freed 2097152 items
$1 = (0 <repeats 2097152 times>)
...
but is fixed by the fix for C.

Add Fortran and Ada variants of the test-case.  The *.exp files are similar
enough to the original to keep the copyright years range.

While writing the Fortran test-case, I ran into needing an additional print
setting to print the entire array in repeat form, filed as PR exp/30817.

I managed to apply the compilation loop for the Ada variant as well, but with
a cumbersome repetition style.  I noticed no other test-case uses gnateD, so
perhaps there's a better way of implementing this.

The regression test included in the patch is formulated in its weakest
form, to avoid false positive FAILs, which also means that smaller regressions
may not get detected.

Tested on x86_64-linux.

Approved-By: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>