[Bug general/29176] run-backtrace-native-biarch.sh seems to fail on Ubuntu Jammy
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29176 --- Comment #9 from Jan-Benedict Glaw --- Is there already a decision on whether or not the tests should pass when there's no dbgsym package installed for libc? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
Re: [PATCH v3] strip: keep .ctf section in stripped file
Hello, On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 12:24:19PM +, Nick Clifton wrote: > Hi Mark, > > > > > I am mainly wondering why binutils strip already seems to keep ".ctf" > > > > sections (even without -g). > > > Right. But I am wondering how that mechanism works with binutils strip. > > Apparently we do something different in eu-strip which makes it > > necessary to add a --keep-ctf option based on the section name. It > > would be good if we figured out how/what we can do to keep the > > different strip utilities in sync. > > I think that the function that does this is "is_strip_section_1" in That's right, this function decided whether the section will be striped out by default, if it has set `SEC_DEBUGGING' in BFD section flags then section is removed by the default. For `.ctf' this flag is not set because in `_bfd_elf_make_section_from_shdr' when BFD sections are building it uses the section's name: ".debug", ".gnu.debuglto_.debug_", ".gnu.linkonce.wi.", ".zdebug", "lines", ".stab", etc, to set `SEC_DEBUGGING' flag. > binutils/objcopy.c. If an input section has the BSF_DEBUGGING flag > set (an internal flag to he BFD library, but basically it should be > set for all debug sections, including .ctf sections I think), then > the basic decision is to keep the section unless -g is used. > > Cheers > Nick > Kind regards, guillermo
[Bug general/29176] run-backtrace-native-biarch.sh seems to fail on Ubuntu Jammy
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29176 --- Comment #10 from Mark Wielaard --- (In reply to Jan-Benedict Glaw from comment #9) > Is there already a decision on whether or not the tests should pass when > there's no dbgsym package installed for libc? The test should pass even without the dbgsym package. The unwinder should work without any extra debuginfo installed. It (now) also fails on debian-testing in the buildbot: https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/builders/elfutils-debian-testing-x86_64 PASS: run-backtrace-native.sh SKIP: run-backtrace-native-core.sh FAIL: run-backtrace-native-biarch.sh SKIP: run-backtrace-native-core-biarch.sh The skips there are because there are no core files created. The issue seems to be a testcase issue, where it expects "real" symbol names, even if it doesn't really matter. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[PATCH] tests: skip '(null)' symname frames in backtrace tests
Some setups might have some frames for unknown (null) functions
in the thread backtrace. Skip these frames instead of failing
immediately.
* tests/backtrace.c (callback_verify): Check and skip nulls_seen.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29176
Signed-off-by: Mark Wielaard
---
tests/backtrace.c | 8
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tests/backtrace.c b/tests/backtrace.c
index afc12fb9..5301 100644
--- a/tests/backtrace.c
+++ b/tests/backtrace.c
@@ -90,6 +90,14 @@ callback_verify (pid_t tid, unsigned frameno, Dwarf_Addr pc,
return;
}
Dwfl_Module *mod;
+ /* Skip frames for which there isn't a function name. */
+ static int nulls_seen = 0;
+ if (symname == NULL)
+{
+ nulls_seen++;
+ return;
+}
+ frameno -= nulls_seen;
/* See case 4. Special case to help out simple frame pointer unwinders. */
static bool duplicate_sigusr2 = false;
if (duplicate_sigusr2)
--
2.31.1
[Bug general/29176] run-backtrace-native-biarch.sh seems to fail on Ubuntu Jammy
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29176 --- Comment #11 from Mark Wielaard --- Proposed patch: https://patchwork.sourceware.org/project/elfutils/patch/20230304213534.1448550-1-m...@klomp.org/ Did pass on the elfutils-debian-amd64 builder: https://builder.sourceware.org/buildbot/#/builders/205/builds/58 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug general/30196] New: [0.189 regression] configure.ac contains Bashisms
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30196 Bug ID: 30196 Summary: [0.189 regression] configure.ac contains Bashisms Product: elfutils Version: unspecified Status: UNCONFIRMED Severity: normal Priority: P2 Component: general Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org Reporter: sourceware at mattwhitlock dot name CC: elfutils-devel at sourceware dot org Target Milestone: --- Created attachment 14729 --> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=14729&action=edit elfutils-0.189-fix-configure-bashisms.patch Autoconf scripts are supposed to be written in POSIX-compatible shell language. elfutils commits 0ffe2874e75d48cb88936e119e5284ff2bf664d9 and 3fa98a6f29b0f370e32549ead7eb897c839af980 introduced Bashisms to configure.ac that cause errors when /bin/sh is not Bash. Example error when /bin/sh is Dash: ./configure: 8748: test: xyes: unexpected operator The cause of the error is the use of a non-existent == operator in expressions passed to the 'test' built-in command. POSIX shell specifies only an = operator for testing string equality. Please make the corrections indicated in the attached patch. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
