Update gdb.Value.__str__ to iterate through, and return, children val…#21
Update gdb.Value.__str__ to iterate through, and return, children val…#21cmtice wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
…ues, if there are any.
print_elements.test, and update the test to actually test the new funcitonality as well.
| elements" values. | ||
|
|
||
| CHECK: gdb.parameter('print elements'): None | ||
| CHECK: gdb.parameter('print elements'): 256 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The behavior where a negative number means "no limit" was recently removed by llvm/llvm-project#105460. I think it would be better to just remove this CHECK, I don't see a need to check for a specific default value and it makes the test brittle in case lldb decides to change the default.
If you want, you could also simplify the parameter function around line 950 to
def parameter(s: str) -> Any:
# gdb's 'print elements' is used for number of array elements to print and
# also max number of chars in a string. lldb has 'target.max-children-count'
# and 'target.max-string-summary-length', but max-children-count seems like
# a closer match.
if s == "print elements":
return int(_GetSetting('target.max-children-count'))
return None
but we can also do that as a follow-up if you prefer.
| # gdb.parameter('print elements') returns None in this case. | ||
| # gdb.parameter('print elements') returns 256 in this case. | ||
| debugger.HandleCommand('settings set -- target.max-children-count -99') | ||
| print("gdb.parameter('print elements'):", gdb.parameter('print elements')) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same here, please remove the negative number test case.
| if (t.GetTypeClass() == lldb.eTypeClassStruct): | ||
| valstr = str(self._sbvalue_object.GetSyntheticValue()) | ||
| if (valstr != "No value" and | ||
| valstr.find("$1") == -1): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would SBValue.IsValid() work here instead of checking the string against "No value"?
What is the check against "$1" supposed to do? If possible, we should replace this with some API call that tests some property of the SBValue rather than pattern-matching the stringified version. If this is not possible, is it always "$1" or is this the kind of convenience variable that depends on how many expressions you've evaluated before? Can it ever be "$2" or "$3"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The problem comes from 'address.test'. There is a part of the text that specifically does not want to use a synthetic value (but there is a valid one). The Check line is
CHECK: Pretty s = pretty MyStruct
What my code returns, without the '$1' test is:
Pretty s = (MyStruct) $1 = pretty MyStruct
I don't really like the '$1' hack, but I'm not sure how to handle/fix this particular case?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Using IsValid does work, allowing me to not text for "No Value"
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've been trying some stuff and it looks like lldb is pretty inflexible about what str(sbvalue) does. It will always generate a string with the following format
(${val.GetType().GetName()}) ${val.GetName()} = ${val.GetSummary()} {
children
...
}
In this case, the "$1" comes from SBValue.GetName(). If we want to match what gdb does, I'm afraid we'll need to implement the logic to generate the string ourselves without relying on str(val).
Or we could live with (MyStruct) $1 = pretty MyStruct and relax address.test to match that output.
2 participants
Update "gdb.Value.str" to check synthetic values.
This updates gdb.Value.str to iterate through, and return, synthetic children values if there are any, when it is appropriate. It also fixes a small bug in print_elements.test (the assumed return value for negative numbers is incorrect), and updates that test to test this new functionality.