ctf_dump_objts output string

[Nick Alcock]

On 3 Feb 2026, Nick Alcock spake thusly:

> On 30 Jan 2026, Alan Modra uttered the following:
>
>> diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-ctf/data-func-conflicted-vars.d b/ld/testsuite/ld-ctf/data-func-conflicted-vars.d
>> index 4e570c6a61a..e2bd077cf9e 100644
>> --- a/ld/testsuite/ld-ctf/data-func-conflicted-vars.d
>> +++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-ctf/data-func-conflicted-vars.d
>> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@ Contents of CTF section \.ctf:
>>      String section:	.*
>>  #...
>>    Data objects:
>> +    Section is indexed.
>>      bar -> 0x[0-9a-f]*: \(kind 6\) struct var_3 \(size 0x[0-9a-f]*\) \(aligned at 0x[0-9a-f]*\)
>>      var_1 -> 0x[0-9a-f]*: \(kind 10\) foo_t \(size 0x[0-9a-f]*\) \(aligned at 0x[0-9a-f]*\) -> .*
>>      var_666 -> 0x[0-9a-f]*: \(kind 3\) foo_t \* \(size 0x[0-9a-f]*\) \(aligned at 0x[0-9a-f]*\) -> .*
>
> That doesn't really *look* very nice. Maybe we could indent it a bit:
>
>>    Data objects:
>>        (Section is indexed.)
>>      bar -> 0x[0-9a-f]*: \(kind 6\) struct var_3 \(size 0x[0-9a-f]*\) \(aligned at 0x[0-9a-f]*\)
>
> perhaps? (Putting the indexed stuff on the same line as the Data objects
> is a bit hard.)

Patch adjustment for that is obvious:

diff --git a/libctf/ctf-dump.c b/libctf/ctf-dump.c
index 3fd8cb87f9f..410b6f67cc1 100644
--- a/libctf/ctf-dump.c
+++ b/libctf/ctf-dump.c
@@ -445,11 +445,12 @@ ctf_dump_objts (ctf_dict_t *fp, ctf_dump_state_t *state, int functions)
   ctf_next_t *i = NULL;
   char *str = NULL;
 
-  if ((functions && fp->ctf_funcidx_names)
-      || (!functions && fp->ctf_objtidx_names))
+  if (functions ? fp->ctf_funcidx_names : fp->ctf_objtidx_names)
     str = str_append (str, _("  (Section is indexed.)\n"));
   else if (fp->ctf_ext_symtab.cts_data == NULL)
     str = str_append (str, _("  (No symbol table.)\n"));
+  if (str)
+    ctf_dump_append (state, str);
 
   while ((id = ctf_symbol_next (fp, &i, &name, functions)) != CTF_ERR)
     {

(I suspect the "no symbol table" can't actually appear.)

> This has implications for a whole bunch of the testcases too, since many

... which you already adjusted. Sorry, my brain is clearly not turned on.

-- 
NULL && (void)