This patch fixes a failure in test `gdb.ada/access_to_packed_array.exp`.
The failure was introduced by
8c2e4e0689ea24 ("gdb: add accessors to
struct dynamic_prop"), but I think it in fact exposed a latent buglet.
Note that to reproduce it, I had to use AdaCore's Ada "distribution"
[1]. The one that comes with my distro doesn't have debug info for the
standard library stuff, so the bug wouldn't trigger.
The bug is that while executing the `maint print symbols` command, we
are accessing the value of a range type's high bound dynamic prop as a
"const" value (PROP_CONST), when it is actually undefined
(PROP_UNDEFINED). It results in this failed assertion:
/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/gdb/gdbtypes.h:526: internal-error: LONGEST dynamic_prop::const_val() const: Assertion `m_kind == PROP_CONST' failed.
`ada_discrete_type_high_bound` calls `resolve_dynamic_type`, which
eventually calls `resolve_dynamic_range`. This one is responsible for
evaluating a range type's dynamic bounds in the current context and
returning static values. It returns a new range type with these static
bounds.
The resulting bounds are typically properties of the PROP_CONST kind.
But when it's not possible to evaluate the properties, the properties
are PROP_UNDEFINED. In the case we are looking at, it's not possible to
evaluate the dynamic high bound, which is of type PROP_LOCLIST. It
would require a target with registers and a frame, but we run `maint
print symbols` without a live process.
`ada_discrete_type_high_bound` then accesses the high bound
unconditionally as a const value, which triggers the assert.
Note that the previous code in resolve_dynamic_range (before commit
8c2e4e0689ea24) did this:
prop = &TYPE_RANGE_DATA (dyn_range_type)->high;
if (dwarf2_evaluate_property (prop, NULL, addr_stack, &value))
{
high_bound.kind = PROP_CONST;
high_bound.data.const_val = value;
if (TYPE_RANGE_DATA (dyn_range_type)->flag_upper_bound_is_count)
high_bound.data.const_val
= low_bound.data.const_val + high_bound.data.const_val - 1;
}
else
{
high_bound.kind = PROP_UNDEFINED;
high_bound.data.const_val = 0;
}
That did not really made sense, setting the kind to `PROP_UNDEFINED` but
also setting the `const_val` field. The `const_val` field is only
meaningful if the kind if `PROP_CONST`. The new code
(post-
8c2e4e0689ea24) simply calls `set_undefined ()`.
Fix this by making the caller, `ada_discrete_type_high_bound`, consider
that a range high bound could be of kind `PROP_UNDEFINED`, and return
0 in this case. I made the same change in ada_discrete_type_low_bound.
I didn't encounter a problem with this function, but the same could in
theory happen there.
Returning 0 here is kind of a lie, but the goal here is just to restore
the behavior of pre-
8c2e4e0689ea24.
The output of `maint print symbols` is:
typedef <ada__exceptions__exception_data__append_info_basic_exception_information__TTnameSP1: range 1 .. 0;
record
ada__exceptions__exception_data__append_info_basic_exception_information__TTnameSP1: range 1 .. 0;
end record;
Instead of `1 .. 0`, which does not make sense, we could say something
like `1 .. <dynamic>`. But that would require more changes than I'm
willing to do at the moment.
[1] https://www.adacore.com/download
gdb/ChangeLog:
PR ada/26235
* gdbtypes.c (ada_discrete_type_low_bound,
ada_discrete_type_high_bound): Handle undefined bounds.
Change-Id: Ia12167e61ef030941c0790f83294f3418e6a7c12
+2020-07-21 Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
+
+ PR ada/26235
+ * gdbtypes.c (ada_discrete_type_low_bound,
+ ada_discrete_type_high_bound): Handle undefined bounds.
+
2020-07-21 Kamil Rytarowski <n54@gmx.com>
* nbsd-nat.h (nbsd_nat_target::supports_multi_process): New
switch (type->code ())
{
case TYPE_CODE_RANGE:
- return type->bounds ()->high.const_val ();
+ {
+ const dynamic_prop &high = type->bounds ()->high;
+
+ if (high.kind () == PROP_CONST)
+ return high.const_val ();
+ else
+ {
+ gdb_assert (high.kind () == PROP_UNDEFINED);
+
+ /* This happens when trying to evaluate a type's dynamic bound
+ without a live target. There is nothing relevant for us to
+ return here, so return 0. */
+ return 0;
+ }
+ }
case TYPE_CODE_ENUM:
return TYPE_FIELD_ENUMVAL (type, type->num_fields () - 1);
case TYPE_CODE_BOOL:
switch (type->code ())
{
case TYPE_CODE_RANGE:
- return type->bounds ()->low.const_val ();
+ {
+ const dynamic_prop &low = type->bounds ()->low;
+
+ if (low.kind () == PROP_CONST)
+ return low.const_val ();
+ else
+ {
+ gdb_assert (low.kind () == PROP_UNDEFINED);
+
+ /* This happens when trying to evaluate a type's dynamic bound
+ without a live target. There is nothing relevant for us to
+ return here, so return 0. */
+ return 0;
+ }
+ }
case TYPE_CODE_ENUM:
return TYPE_FIELD_ENUMVAL (type, 0);
case TYPE_CODE_BOOL: