gdb: include breakpoint number in testing condition error message

When GDB fails to test the condition of a conditional breakpoint, for
whatever reason, the error message looks like this:

  (gdb) break foo if (*(int *) 0) == 1
  Breakpoint 1 at 0x40111e: file bpcond.c, line 11.
  (gdb) r
  Starting program: /tmp/bpcond
  Error in testing breakpoint condition:
  Cannot access memory at address 0x0

  Breakpoint 1, foo () at bpcond.c:11
  11	  int a = 32;
  (gdb)

The line I'm interested in for this commit is this one:

  Error in testing breakpoint condition:

In the case above we can figure out that the problematic breakpoint
was #1 because in the final line of the message GDB reports the stop
at breakpoint #1.

However, in the next few patches I plan to change this.  In some cases
I don't think it makes sense for GDB to report the stop as being at
breakpoint #1, consider this case:

  (gdb) list some_func
  1	int
  2	some_func ()
  3	{
  4	  int *p = 0;
  5	  return *p;
  6	}
  7
  8	void
  9	foo ()
  10	{
  (gdb) break foo if (some_func ())
  Breakpoint 1 at 0x40111e: file bpcond.c, line 11.
  (gdb) r
  Starting program: /tmp/bpcond

  Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
  0x0000000000401116 in some_func () at bpcond.c:5
  5	  return *p;
  Error in testing breakpoint condition:
  The program being debugged was signaled while in a function called from GDB.
  GDB remains in the frame where the signal was received.
  To change this behavior use "set unwindonsignal on".
  Evaluation of the expression containing the function
  (some_func) will be abandoned.
  When the function is done executing, GDB will silently stop.

  Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.

  Breakpoint 1, 0x0000000000401116 in some_func () at bpcond.c:5
  5	  return *p;
  (gdb)

Notice that, the final lines of output reports the stop as being at
breakpoint #1, even though the inferior in not located within
some_func, and it's certainly not located at the breakpoint location.

I find this behaviour confusing, and propose that this should be
changed.  However, if I make that change then every reference to
breakpoint #1 will be lost from the error message.

So, in this commit, in preparation for the later commits, I propose to
change the 'Error in testing breakpoint condition:' line to this:

  Error in testing condition for breakpoint NUMBER:

where NUMBER will be filled in as appropriate.  Here's the first
example with the updated error:

  (gdb) break foo if (*(int *) 0) == 0
  Breakpoint 1 at 0x40111e: file bpcond.c, line 11.
  (gdb) r
  Starting program: /tmp/bpcond
  Error in testing condition for breakpoint 1:
  Cannot access memory at address 0x0

  Breakpoint 1, foo () at bpcond.c:11
  11	  int a = 32;
  (gdb)

The breakpoint number does now appear twice in the output, but I don't
see that as a negative.

This commit just changes the one line of the error, and updates the
few tests that either included the old error in comments, or actually
checked for the error in the expected output.

As the only test that checked the line I modified is a Python test,
I've added a new test that doesn't rely on Python that checks the
error message in detail.

While working on the new test, I spotted that it would fail when run
with native-gdbserver and native-extended-gdbserver target boards.
This turns out to be due to a gdbserver bug.  To avoid cluttering this
commit I've added a work around to the new test script so that the
test passes for the remote boards, in the next few commits I will fix
gdbserver, and update the test script to remove the work around.

0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions