Dave Anderson wrote on Wed, Feb 05, 2020: > > What might make sense is to use the "struct -r" option, which does a raw > > memory dump of a data structure. But for a reason I do not recall, it > > prevents that option from being used with a "struct_name.field" argument. > > (see line 6628 of symbols.c). But I don't see why that couldn't be made > > to work, though, since the end result is simply a call to raw_data_dump(). I'll give this a try tomorrow, probably just needs to add dm->member_offset to addr and dump dm->member_size long value, that looks straightforward enough. > ...and then if you get "struct -r" to work with a "struct_name.field" > argument, the next challenge would be the caching aspect of your request. > > Currently there's no manner in which command-specific information is > cached beyond the execution of a single command. With "< file", the > command gets executed from scratch each time. That does look more challenging... Or rather more a matter of taste? a kludge probably wouldn't be so bad to put in, but it's probably better to have something more generic than making 'datatype_member' static in cmd_datatype_common (well, it needs a bit more than that as the argument strings won't be useable from one call to the next...) I assume the slow part in this will be the member_to_datatype call in do_datatype_addr? I'll first confirm that's the only slow bit, if there is only one spot to optimize away it might not be so bad. But yeah, without caching I don't think it's realistic; and making the '< file' construct iterate within the function looks more work than trying to make struct cache some info. Thanks! -- Dominique -- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
