This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Add la_getstr member to language_defn
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman at br dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>, gdb-patches ml <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 16:23:36 -0800
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Add la_getstr member to language_defn
- References: <1227417278.28256.183.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20081123161013.GA15069@caradoc.them.org> <1227490821.8533.25.camel@hotblack.bauerhaus> <20081124022858.GA19331@caradoc.them.org> <1227551659.28256.225.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20081124202146.GA1991@caradoc.them.org> <1227564549.28256.248.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1230949603.8380.143.camel@localhost.localdomain>
> The patch doesn't apply anymore. This is the same patch, refreshed
> against HEAD as of Dec 28th. Ok?
Just a few comments and questions in addition to Tom's comments...
> + if ((TYPE_NFIELDS (type) == 1)
> + && TYPE_CODE (TYPE_FIELD_TYPE (type, 0)) == TYPE_CODE_RANGE)
The extra parens around "TYPE_NFIELDS (type) == 1" shouldn't be
necessary, right? In this case, it's pretty harmless, but a little
bit below, this really starts making it hard to read a condition...
> + if (((VALUE_LVAL (value) == not_lval)
> + || (VALUE_LVAL (value) == lval_internalvar)) && (fetchlimit != UINT_MAX))
Can this be formatted as follow:
if ((VALUE_LVAL (value) == not_lval
|| VALUE_LVAL (value) == lval_internalvar)
&& fetchlimit != UINT_MAX)
? (assuming my reading is correct!) The reason I like my suggestion
is because there are less parentheses, so it's easier to match them
without using my favorite editor; also, the formatting makes it clear
at which level the || and the && operators are.
> + if ((TYPE_CODE (element_type) != TYPE_CODE_INT)
> + && (TYPE_CODE (element_type) != TYPE_CODE_CHAR))
Same here.
> @@ -511,6 +626,7 @@ const struct language_defn minimal_language_defn =
> c_language_arch_info,
> default_print_array_index,
> default_pass_by_reference,
> + default_get_string,
> LANG_MAGIC
> };
I was wondering if it wouldn't be more useful to use the c_get_string
function as the default rather than the default_get_string stub.
What do you guys think? Granted, I know that there are cases for Ada
where this isn't going to be enough, but I also know that it's going
to handle some cases fine. I don't know how other languages such as
Fortran or Pascal encode their strings, but chances are that if we
call this function with a value whose type is an array of chars/ints
or a char/int pointer, the c_get_string value would probably work.
As for the Ada implementation, it's probably going to look like this:
if (value_type is char/int_array or char/int_pointer)
{
/* A string a-la-C: Call the C get_string routine... */
c_get_string (...);
return;
}
/* Ada-specific strings handled here. */
So setting the la_get_string method to c_get_string would be a good
starting point for Ada. The implementation is robust enough that
we'd get an error if the value type is not handled properly, which
is exactly what the default_get_string routine always does.
--
Joel