Re: [PATCH v2] tests: do not fail on zero sized DIEs (binutils-2.39 compatible)
On Thu, 13 Oct 2022 16:40:36 +0200
Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2022-08-08 at 01:17 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 07, 2022 at 07:31:38PM +0100, Sergei Trofimovich via
> > Elfutils-devel wrote:
> > > binutils started producing 0-sized DIEs on functions interspersed
> > > by nested sections (".section ...; .previous). This led to
> > > run-low_high_pc.sh failure in form of:
> > >
> > > FAIL: run-low_high_pc.sh
> > >
> > >
> > > [b] main.c
> > > [2d] main
> > >
> > > [b] ../sysdeps/i386/start.S
> > > [26] _start
> > > [40] ../sysdeps/x86/abi-note.c
> > > [b52] init.c
> > > [b8e] static-reloc.c
> > > [2dba] _dl_relocate_static_pie
> > > [2dd8] ../sysdeps/i386/crti.S
> > > [2def] _init
> > > lowpc: 8049000, highpc: 8049000lx
> > > ../sysdeps/i386/crti.S: [2def] '_init' highpc <= lowpc
> > > FAIL run-low_high_pc.sh (exit status: 255)
> > >
> > > To work it around let's allow lowpc == highpc special case.
> > >
> > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29450
> >
> > Thanks for finding this and suggesting a workaround. But lets first
> > try to fix binutils. This seems like a pretty bad bug, lets hope it
> > gets fixed soon. So we don't need these kind of workarounds.
> >
> > I added a comment to the binutils bug:
> > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29451#c2
>
> Since this binutils bug was fixed I assume this patch isn't needed
> anymore.
Agreed. https://sourceware.org/PR29450#c8 cosed the bug as RESOLVED/MOVED
to declare it a binutils deficiency. Downstream use binutils-2.39 with a
gas patch and are able to run unmodified elfutils testsuite as is.
Thank you!
--
Sergei
Re: [PATCH v2] tests: do not fail on zero sized DIEs (binutils-2.39 compatible)
Hi,
On Mon, 2022-08-08 at 01:17 +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 07, 2022 at 07:31:38PM +0100, Sergei Trofimovich via
> Elfutils-devel wrote:
> > binutils started producing 0-sized DIEs on functions interspersed
> > by nested sections (".section ...; .previous). This led to
> > run-low_high_pc.sh failure in form of:
> >
> > FAIL: run-low_high_pc.sh
> >
> >
> > [b] main.c
> > [2d] main
> >
> > [b] ../sysdeps/i386/start.S
> > [26] _start
> > [40] ../sysdeps/x86/abi-note.c
> > [b52] init.c
> > [b8e] static-reloc.c
> > [2dba] _dl_relocate_static_pie
> > [2dd8] ../sysdeps/i386/crti.S
> > [2def] _init
> > lowpc: 8049000, highpc: 8049000lx
> > ../sysdeps/i386/crti.S: [2def] '_init' highpc <= lowpc
> > FAIL run-low_high_pc.sh (exit status: 255)
> >
> > To work it around let's allow lowpc == highpc special case.
> >
> > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29450
>
> Thanks for finding this and suggesting a workaround. But lets first
> try to fix binutils. This seems like a pretty bad bug, lets hope it
> gets fixed soon. So we don't need these kind of workarounds.
>
> I added a comment to the binutils bug:
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29451#c2
Since this binutils bug was fixed I assume this patch isn't needed
anymore.
Thanks,
Mark
Re: [PATCH v2] tests: do not fail on zero sized DIEs (binutils-2.39 compatible)
Hi Sergei,
On Sun, Aug 07, 2022 at 07:31:38PM +0100, Sergei Trofimovich via Elfutils-devel
wrote:
> binutils started producing 0-sized DIEs on functions interspersed
> by nested sections (".section ...; .previous). This led to
> run-low_high_pc.sh failure in form of:
>
> FAIL: run-low_high_pc.sh
>
>
> [b] main.c
> [2d] main
>
> [b] ../sysdeps/i386/start.S
> [26] _start
> [40] ../sysdeps/x86/abi-note.c
> [b52] init.c
> [b8e] static-reloc.c
> [2dba] _dl_relocate_static_pie
> [2dd8] ../sysdeps/i386/crti.S
> [2def] _init
> lowpc: 8049000, highpc: 8049000lx
> ../sysdeps/i386/crti.S: [2def] '_init' highpc <= lowpc
> FAIL run-low_high_pc.sh (exit status: 255)
>
> To work it around let's allow lowpc == highpc special case.
>
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29450
Thanks for finding this and suggesting a workaround. But lets first
try to fix binutils. This seems like a pretty bad bug, lets hope it
gets fixed soon. So we don't need these kind of workarounds.
I added a comment to the binutils bug:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29451#c2
Cheers,
Mark
[PATCH v2] tests: do not fail on zero sized DIEs (binutils-2.39 compatible)
binutils started producing 0-sized DIEs on functions interspersed
by nested sections (".section ...; .previous). This led to
run-low_high_pc.sh failure in form of:
FAIL: run-low_high_pc.sh
[b] main.c
[2d] main
[b] ../sysdeps/i386/start.S
[26] _start
[40] ../sysdeps/x86/abi-note.c
[b52] init.c
[b8e] static-reloc.c
[2dba] _dl_relocate_static_pie
[2dd8] ../sysdeps/i386/crti.S
[2def] _init
lowpc: 8049000, highpc: 8049000lx
../sysdeps/i386/crti.S: [2def] '_init' highpc <= lowpc
FAIL run-low_high_pc.sh (exit status: 255)
To work it around let's allow lowpc == highpc special case.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29450
Signed-off-by: Sergei Trofimovich
---
tests/ChangeLog | 4
tests/low_high_pc.c | 8 +---
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tests/ChangeLog b/tests/ChangeLog
index 0c6f68ef..59b4252a 100644
--- a/tests/ChangeLog
+++ b/tests/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
+2022-08-07 Sergei Trofimovich
+
+ * low_high_pc.c (handle_die): Allow zero sized DIEs for binutils-2.39.
+
2022-08-01 Mark Wielaard
* run-debuginfod-percent-escape.sh: Add initial scan wait_ready.
diff --git a/tests/low_high_pc.c b/tests/low_high_pc.c
index 78b6ad08..63268f4c 100644
--- a/tests/low_high_pc.c
+++ b/tests/low_high_pc.c
@@ -66,11 +66,13 @@ handle_die (Dwarf_Die *die, void *arg)
fail (off, name, "has DW_AT_high_pc but dwarf_highpc fails");
/* GCC < 4.7 had a bug where no code CUs got a highpc == lowpc.
- Allow that, because it is not the main purpose of this test. */
+ Allow that, because it is not the main purpose of this test.
+ gas-2.39 produces zero sized DIEs for subprograms sometimes:
+ https://sourceware.org/PR29451.
+ */
if (dwarf_hasattr (die, DW_AT_low_pc)
&& dwarf_hasattr (die, DW_AT_high_pc)
- && highpc <= lowpc
- && ! (dwarf_tag (die) == DW_TAG_compile_unit && highpc == lowpc))
+ && highpc < lowpc)
{
printf("lowpc: %" PRIx64 ", highpc: %" PRIx64 "lx\n", lowpc, highpc);
fail (off, name, "highpc <= lowpc");
--
2.37.1
