On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 5:14 PM HAGIO KAZUHITO(萩尾 一仁) <k-hagio-ab@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2022/05/27 16:03, lijiang wrote:
> >> If no another gdb setting, we will need to rewrite the parser.
> >> So first, I'd like to know whether there is no another setting.
> >
> > Otherwise, maybe we can patch the gdb code...
> >
> > That '{...}' is probably printed in c_type_print_base_struct_union().
> > And found a comment for c_type_print_base_1() in gdb/c-typeprint.c:
> >
> > SHOW negative means just print the type name or struct tag if there
> > is one. If there is no name, print something sensible but concise
> > like "struct {...}".
> >
> > Just an idea and clue.
>
>
> I like the good idea.
>
> Just a rough try and I've not tested enough, but this patch might be
> somewhat good.
>
> --- gdb-10.2.orig/gdb/c-typeprint.c 2022-05-27 14:49:53.079853333 +0900
> +++ gdb-10.2/gdb/c-typeprint.c 2022-05-27 14:47:18.729165094 +0900
> @@ -1043,6 +1043,8 @@
> struct type_print_options local_flags = *flags;
> local_flags.local_typedefs = NULL;
>
> + show = 1;
> +
> std::unique_ptr<typedef_hash_table> hash_holder;
> if (!flags->raw)
> {
>
>
> This looks more reasonable to me. Could you please post a patch with this fix?
Sure. But more understanding and testing are needed, I will look into it
next week.
Sounds good and thank you for working on this issue, Kazu.
I will continue to improve the "dev -d" patchset.
Thanks.
Lianbo
Thanks,
Kazu
-- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility Contribution Guidelines: https://github.com/crash-utility/crash/wiki
