This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: FYI: [python/Ada] gdb.lookup_type fails to looking primitive type
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 09:52:35 -0800
- Subject: Re: FYI: [python/Ada] gdb.lookup_type fails to looking primitive type
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1421083588-927-1-git-send-email-brobecker at adacore dot com> <CADPb22RQrxP8oESnjwnxm-Z8HYs=9inFE_JPStmcBCqOy7ZMaA at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150113094426 dot GE8167 at adacore dot com> <CADPb22T8FM7a0GDVqig79OhfG_9juhWZ9L1wu3XO-HF++SDZDg at mail dot gmail dot com> <20150114050051 dot GH8167 at adacore dot com> <20150121094440 dot GA24515 at adacore dot com>
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Joel Brobecker <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> > Not that I'm expecting anyone to go back and change things,
>> > but maybe for future reference it'd be better to print the result
>> > and record the expected output, instead of expecting no output.
>> > Performing a lookup action, and then expecting no output,
>> > is just too confusing to me.
>> The only issue I have with that is that I'd like to do something
>> whose behavior is defined. Looking at the GDB manual, I can't see
>> anything said about what to expect when converting a gdb.Type to
>> a string... If we clarify that, I have no problem adding the extra
>> "print" in the test.
> I tried looking into the code as to what the semantics of printing
> the gdb.Type object should be, and couldn't figure it out. It seems
> to be printing the type name, but I'm not sure why. So, instead of
> waiting for a clarification that may never come, I propose the
Ah, I didn't know you were waiting on me.
I think printing the type name is just what was chosen at the time.
That choice is fine by me fwiw.
> * gdb.python/py-lookup-type.exp (test_lookup_type): Change
> the second test to print the name attribute of value
> returned by the call to gdb.lookup_type, and adjust
> the expected output accordingly.
> Tested on x86_64-linux.
> Does this change answer your concerns?
There was no need to address anything, but thanks.
I was just making a suggestion for the next time.
[And I mean "suggestion" literally. 1/2 :-)]
The patch is fine by me.