Re: [PATCH] Fix PR gdb/17035: "show user" doesn't list user-defined commands that have empty bodies.

[Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <gabriel at krisman dot be>]

Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:

>>        c = lookup_cmd (&comname, cmdlist, "", 0, 1);
>> -      /* c->user_commands would be NULL if it's a python/scheme command.  */
>> -      if (c->class != class_user || !c->user_commands)
>> -	error (_("Not a user command."));
>> +      if (c->class != class_user)
>> +        error (_("Not a user command."));
>
> Doesn't this mean this reverts part of 7d74f2446, and thus now we'd
> show python/scheme commands?
>
> IIUC 7d74f2446, it looks like gdb.python/py-cmd.exp is missing
> a test that makes sure "show user" doesn't list the user-defined python command.
>
> (hmm, this "show user" vs "help user-defined" difference isn't very
> intuitive)

Hello Pedro,

Thanks for your review.

Indeed, this means we'd start to show python/scheme commands, but I
wasn't aware of commit 7d74f2446.

I don't see that as a problem, because python/scheme are also user
commands (or, at least, are part of class_user class).  Considering that
"help user-defined" also shows python/scheme commands, I believe it
would be more practical to just list them on "show user" (should we
update the doc string, as well).

Either way, the "Not a user command" error message is quite misleading
for python/scheme commands, though.

If you disagree, I'd be happy to update the patch to rely on another
condition to avoid printing python/scheme commands.
c->function.cfunc/sfunc == NULL seems to work pretty well to avoid
printing python commands.

What do you think?

> What is this printing now ?

Now, it prints:

(gdb) show user
User command "emptycmd":
User command "cmd1":
  print "Hello"

User command "python-hello":
User command "user-defined":

Using the verification for cfunc/sfunc above, also avoids
printing the "user-defined" line.

Thanks,

-- 
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi

Attachment: pgp6dTzSELA6_.pgp
Description: PGP signature