classes.exp

这个是LINUX下的GDB调度工具的源码

	    { field  public "int z;" }
	    { method public "Bar(int, int, int);" }
	}

}

# Test simple access to class members.

proc test_non_inherited_member_access {} {
    
    # Print non-inherited members of g_A.
    gdb_test "print g_A.a" ".* = 1"
    gdb_test "print g_A.x" ".* = 2"

    # Print non-inherited members of g_B.
    gdb_test "print g_B.b" ".* = 5"
    gdb_test "print g_B.x" ".* = 6"

    # Print non-inherited members of g_C.
    gdb_test "print g_C.c" ".* = 9"
    gdb_test "print g_C.x" ".* = 10"

    # Print non-inherited members of g_D.
    gdb_test "print g_D.d" ".* = 19"
    gdb_test "print g_D.x" ".* = 20"

    # Print non-inherited members of g_E.
    gdb_test "print g_E.e" ".* = 31"
    gdb_test "print g_E.x" ".* = 32"
}

# Test access to members of other classes.
# gdb should refuse to print them.
# (I feel old -- I remember when this was legal in C -- chastain).

proc test_wrong_class_members {} {
    gdb_test "print g_A.b" "There is no member( or method|) named b."
    gdb_test "print g_B.c" "There is no member( or method|) named c."
    gdb_test "print g_B.d" "There is no member( or method|) named d."
    gdb_test "print g_C.b" "There is no member( or method|) named b."
    gdb_test "print g_C.d" "There is no member( or method|) named d."
    gdb_test "print g_D.e" "There is no member( or method|) named e."
}

# Test access to names that are not members of any class.

proc test_nonexistent_members {} {
    gdb_test "print g_A.y" "There is no member( or method|) named y."
    gdb_test "print g_B.z" "There is no member( or method|) named z."
    gdb_test "print g_C.q" "There is no member( or method|) named q."
    gdb_test "print g_D.p" "There is no member( or method|) named p."
}

# Call a method that expects a base class parameter with base, inherited,
# and unrelated class arguments.

proc test_method_param_class {} {
    gdb_test "call class_param.Aptr_a (&g_A)" ".* = 1"
    gdb_test "call class_param.Aptr_x (&g_A)" ".* = 2"
    gdb_test "call class_param.Aptr_a (&g_B)" ".* = 3"
    gdb_test "call class_param.Aptr_x (&g_B)" ".* = 4"
    gdb_test "call class_param.Aref_a (g_A)" ".* = 1"
    gdb_test "call class_param.Aref_x (g_A)" ".* = 2"
    gdb_test "call class_param.Aref_a (g_B)" ".* = 3"
    gdb_test "call class_param.Aref_x (g_B)" ".* = 4"
    gdb_test "call class_param.Aval_a (g_A)" ".* = 1"
    gdb_test "call class_param.Aval_x (g_A)" ".* = 2"
    gdb_test "call class_param.Aval_a (g_B)" ".* = 3"
    gdb_test "call class_param.Aval_x (g_B)" ".* = 4"

    gdb_test "call class_param.Aptr_a (&foo)" "Cannot resolve .*" "unrelated class *param"
    gdb_test "call class_param.Aref_a (foo)" "Cannot resolve .*" "unrelated class &param"
    gdb_test "call class_param.Aval_a (foo)" "Cannot resolve .*" "unrelated class param"
}

# Examine a class with an enum field.

proc test_enums {} {
    global gdb_prompt
    global nl

    # print the object

    gdb_test "print obj_with_enum" \
	"\\$\[0-9\]+ = \{priv_enum = red, x = 0\}" \
	"print obj_with_enum (1)"

    # advance one line

    gdb_test "next" ""

    # print the object again

    gdb_test "print obj_with_enum" \
	"\\$\[0-9\]+ = \{priv_enum = green, x = 0\}" \
	"print obj_with_enum (2)"

    # print the enum member

    gdb_test "print obj_with_enum.priv_enum" "\\$\[0-9\]+ = green"

    # ptype on the enum member

    gdb_test_multiple "ptype obj_with_enum.priv_enum" "ptype obj_with_enum.priv_enum" {
        -re "type = enum ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum \{ ?red, green, blue, yellow = 42 ?\}$nl$gdb_prompt $" {
	    pass "ptype obj_with_enum.priv_enum"
        }
	-re "type = enum PrivEnum \{ ?red, green, blue, yellow = 42 ?\}$nl$gdb_prompt $" {
	    # gcc 2.95.3 -gdwarf-2
	    # gcc 3.3.2 -gdwarf-2
	    pass "ptype obj_with_enum.priv_enum"
	}
	-re "type = enum \{ ?red, green, blue, yellow = 42 ?\}$nl$gdb_prompt $" {
	    # This case case is a little dubious, but it's not clear what
	    # ought to be required of a ptype on a private enum...
	    # -sts 19990324
	    #
	    # It bugs me that this happens with gcc 3.
	    # -- chastain 2003-12-30
	    #
	    # gcc 2.95.3 -gstabs+
	    # gcc 3.3.2 -gstabs+
	    # gcc HEAD 2003-12-28 21:08:30 UTC -gstabs+
	    pass "ptype obj_with_enum.priv_enum"
	}
    }

    # ptype on the object

    # NOTE: carlton/2003-02-28: One could certainly argue that plain
    # "PrivEnum"
    # is acceptable: PrivEnum is a member of ClassWithEnum, so
    # there's no need to explicitly qualify its name with
    # "ClassWithEnum::".  The truth, though, is that GDB is simply
    # forgetting that PrivEnum is a member of ClassWithEnum, so we do
    # that output for a bad reason instead of a good reason.  Under
    # stabs, we probably can't get this right; under DWARF-2, we can.

    cp_test_ptype_class \
	"ptype obj_with_enum" "" "class" "ClassWithEnum" \
	{
	    { field public "ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum priv_enum;" }
	    { field public "int x;" }
	} \
	"" \
	{
	    {
		"ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum priv_enum;"
		"PrivEnum priv_enum;"
		{ setup_kfail "gdb/57" "*-*-*" }
	    }
	}

    # I'll do this test two different ways, because of a parser bug.
    # See PR gdb/1588.

    gdb_test_multiple "print (ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum) 42" "print (ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum) 42" {
	-re "\\$\[0-9\]+ = yellow$nl$gdb_prompt $" {
	    pass "print (ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum) 42"
	}
	-re "A (parse|syntax) error in expression, near `42'.$nl$gdb_prompt $" {
	    # "parse error" is bison 1.35.
	    # "syntax error" is bison 1.875.
	    kfail "gdb/1588" "print (ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum) 42"
	}
    }

    gdb_test_multiple "print ('ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum') 42" "print ('ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum') 42" {
	-re "\\$\[0-9\]+ = yellow$nl$gdb_prompt $" {
	    # gcc 3.3.2 -gstabs+
	    # gcc HEAD 2003-12-28 21:08:30 UTC -gstabs+
	    pass "print ('ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum') 42"
	}
	-re "No symbol \"ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum\" in current context.$nl$gdb_prompt $" {
	    # gcc 2.95.3 -gdwarf-2
	    # gcc 3.3.2 -gdwarf-2
	    # gcc HEAD 2003-12-28 21:08:30 UTC -gdwarf-2
	    # gcc 2.95.3 -gstabs+
	    kfail "gdb/57" "print ('ClassWithEnum::PrivEnum') 42"
	}
    }
}

# Pointers to class members

proc test_pointers_to_class_members {} {
    gdb_test "print Bar::z" "\\$\[0-9\]+ = \\(int ?\\( ?Bar::& ?\\) ?\\) ?Bar::z"
    gdb_test "print &Foo::x" "\\$\[0-9\]+ = \\(int ?\\( ?Foo::\\* ?\\) ?\\) ?&Foo::x"
    gdb_test "print (int)&Foo::x" "\\$\[0-9\]+ = 0"
    gdb_test "print (int)&Bar::y == 2*sizeof(int)" "\\$\[0-9\]+ = true"

    # TODO: this is a bogus test.  It's looking at a variable that
    # has not even been declared yet, so it's accessing random junk
    # on the stack and comparing that it's NOT equal to a specific
    # value.  It's been like this since gdb 4.10 in 1993!
    # -- chastain 2004-01-01
    gdb_test "print (int)pmi == sizeof(int)" ".* = false"
}

# Test static members.

proc test_static_members {} {
    global hex

    gdb_test "print Foo::st" "\\$\[0-9\]+ = 100"
    gdb_test "set foo.st = 200" "" ""
    gdb_test "print bar.st" "\\$\[0-9\]+ = 200"
    gdb_test "print &foo.st" "\\$\[0-9\]+ = \\(int ?\\*\\) $hex"
    gdb_test "print &Bar::st" "\\$\[0-9\]+ = \\(int ?\\*\\) $hex"
    gdb_test "print *\$" "\\$\[0-9\]+ = 200"

    gdb_test "set print static-members off" ""
    gdb_test "print csi" \
	"{x = 10, y = 20}" \
	"print csi without static members"
    gdb_test "print cnsi" \
	"{x = 30, y = 40}" \
	"print cnsi without static members"

    gdb_test "set print static-members on" ""
    gdb_test "print csi" \
	"{x = 10, y = 20, static null = {x = 0, y = 0, static null = <same as static member of an already seen type>}}" \
	"print csi with static members"
    gdb_test "print cnsi" \
	"{x = 30, y = 40, static null = {x = 0, y = 0, static null = <same as static member of an already seen type>, static yy = {z = 5, static xx = {x = 1, y = 2, static null = <same as static member of an already seen type>, static yy = <same as static member of an already seen type>}}}, static yy = <same as static member of an already seen type>}" \
	"print cnsi with static members"
}

proc do_tests {} {
    global prms_id
    global bug_id
    global subdir
    global objdir
    global srcdir
    global binfile
    global gdb_prompt
    global nl

    set prms_id 0
    set bug_id 0

    # Start with a fresh gdb.

    gdb_exit
    gdb_start
    gdb_reinitialize_dir $srcdir/$subdir
    gdb_load $binfile

    gdb_test "set language c++" "" ""
    gdb_test "set width 0" "" ""

    if ![runto_main ] then {
	perror "couldn't run to breakpoint"
	return
    }

    gdb_breakpoint inheritance2
    gdb_test "continue" ".*Breakpoint .* inheritance2.*" ""

    test_ptype_class_objects
    test_non_inherited_member_access
    test_wrong_class_members
    test_nonexistent_members
    test_method_param_class

    gdb_breakpoint enums2
    gdb_test "continue" ".*Breakpoint .* enums2.*" "continue to enums2(\\(\\)|)"
    gdb_test "finish" "" ""
    test_enums

    gdb_test "finish" "" ""
    test_pointers_to_class_members
    test_static_members

    # Now some random tests that were just thrown in here.

    gdb_breakpoint marker_reg1
    gdb_test "continue" ".*Breakpoint .* marker_reg1.*" ""
    gdb_test "finish" "Run till exit from.*" "finish from marker_reg1"

    # This class is so small that an instance of it can fit in a register.
    # When gdb tries to call a method, it gets embarrassed about taking
    # the address of a register.
    #
    # TODO: I think that message should be a PASS, not an XFAIL.
    # gdb prints an informative message and declines to do something
    # impossible.
    #
    # The method call actually succeeds if the compiler allocates very
    # small classes in memory instead of registers.  So this test does
    # not tell us anything interesting if the call succeeds.
    #
    # -- chastain 2003-12-31
    gdb_test_multiple "print v.method ()" "calling method for small class" {
	-re "\\$\[0-9\]+ = 82$nl$gdb_prompt $" {
	    # gcc 3.3.2 -gdwarf-2
	    # gcc HEAD 2003-12-28 21:08:30 UTC -gdwarf-2
	    # gcc 3.3.2 -gstabs+
	    # gcc HEAD 2003-12-28 21:08:30 UTC -gstabs+
	    pass "calling method for small class"
	}
	-re "Address requested for identifier \"v\" which is in register .*$nl$gdb_prompt $" {
	    # gcc 2.95.3 -gdwarf-2
	    # gcc 2.95.3 -gstabs+
	    setup_xfail "*-*-*" 2972
	    fail "calling method for small class"
	}
    }
}

do_tests