This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: fix PR gdb/2489
- From: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 01:21:47 +0000
- Subject: Re: RFA: fix PR gdb/2489
- References: <m3y73gy2c5.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <200810212324.38183.pedro@codesourcery.com> <m3hc3cmj25.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
On Tuesday 03 February 2009 00:59:46, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Pedro> + ?for (i = TYPE_NFN_FIELDS (type) - 1; i >=0; --i)
> Pedro> + ? ?{
> Pedro> + ? ? ?char *name = TYPE_FN_FIELDLIST_NAME (type, i);
> Pedro> + ? ? ?if (name && ! strncmp (name, fieldname, namelen))
> Pedro> + ? ? ? {
> Pedro> + ? ? ? ? if (!type_name)
> Pedro> + ? ? ? ? ? type_name = type_name_no_tag (type);
> Pedro> + ? ? ? ? /* Omit constructors from the completion list. ?*/
> Pedro> + ? ? ? ? if (strcmp (type_name, name))
> Pedro> + ? ? ? ? ? {
>
> Pedro> Can type_name ever be NULL here then?
>
> The reason for the check here is that we compute type_name the first
> time we need it. ?It is initialized to NULL, but only set once.
Oh, sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I meant after the
type_name_no_tag call, at the strcmp line.
I mainly asked due to this:
/* Return a typename for a struct/union/enum type without "struct ",
"union ", or "enum ". If the type has a NULL name, return NULL. */
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
char *
type_name_no_tag (const struct type *type)
{
if (TYPE_TAG_NAME (type) != NULL)
return TYPE_TAG_NAME (type);
/* Is there code which expects this to return the name if there is
no tag name? My guess is that this is mainly used for C++ in
cases where the two will always be the same. */
return TYPE_NAME (type);
}
I don't know if that can happen here. That was also the reason I
suggested an annonymous struct/class test.
On Tuesday 03 February 2009 00:59:46, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Pedro> (I wish we had a function we could call that abstracted and
> Pedro> made easier to write/read these completion tests.)
>
> I rewrote the tests to use the "complete" command rather than sending
> a TAB. This makes them much simpler.
>
Indeed! Much nicer.
--
Pedro Alves