On 06/10/22 19:38 +0200, François Dumont wrote:
Hi
Looks like the previous patch was not enough. When using it in the
context of a build without dual abi and versioned namespace I started
having failures again. I guess I hadn't rebuild everything properly.
This time I think the problem was in those lines:
if self.type_obj == type_obj:
return strip_inline_namespaces(self.name)
I've added a call to gdb.types.get_basic_type so that we do not compare
a type with its typedef.
Thanks for the pointer to the doc !
Doing so I eventually use your code Jonathan to make FilteringTypeFilter
more specific to a given instantiation.
libstdc++: Fix gdb FilteringTypePrinter
Once we found a matching FilteringTypePrinter instance we look for
the associated
typedef and check that the returned Python Type is equal to the
Type to recognize.
But gdb Python Type includes properties to distinguish a typedef
from the actual
type. So use gdb.types.get_basic_type to check if we are indeed on
the same type.
Additionnaly enhance FilteringTypePrinter matching mecanism by
introducing targ1 that,
if not None, will be used as the 1st template parameter.
libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
* python/libstdcxx/v6/printers.py (FilteringTypePrinter):
Rename 'match' field
'template'. Add self.targ1 to specify the first template
parameter of the instantiation
to match.
(add_one_type_printer): Add targ1 optional parameter,
default to None.
Use gdb.types.get_basic_type to compare the type to
recognize and the type
returned from the typedef lookup.
(register_type_printers): Adapt calls to add_one_type_printers.
Tested under Linux x86_64 normal, version namespace with or without dual
abi.
François
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/python/libstdcxx/v6/printers.py
b/libstdc++-v3/python/libstdcxx/v6/printers.py
index 0fa7805183e..52339b247d8 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/python/libstdcxx/v6/printers.py
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/python/libstdcxx/v6/printers.py
@@ -2040,62 +2040,72 @@ def add_one_template_type_printer(obj, name, defargs):
class FilteringTypePrinter(object):
r"""
- A type printer that uses typedef names for common template specializations.
+ A type printer that uses typedef names for common template instantiations.
Args:
- match (str): The class template to recognize.
+ template (str): The class template to recognize.
name (str): The typedef-name that will be used instead.
+ targ1 (str): The first template argument.
+ If arg1 is provided (not None), only template instantiations with
this type
+ as the first template argument, e.g. if
template='basic_string<targ1'
- Checks if a specialization of the class template 'match' is the same type
+ Checks if an instantiation of the class template 'template' is the same
type
as the typedef 'name', and prints it as 'name' instead.
- e.g. if an instantiation of std::basic_istream<C, T> is the same type as
+ e.g. for template='basic_istream', name='istream', if any instantiation of
+ std::basic_istream<C, T> is the same type as std::istream then print it as
+ std::istream.
+
+ e.g. for template='basic_istream', name='istream', targ1='char', if any
+ instantiation of std::basic_istream<char, T> is the same type as
std::istream then print it as std::istream.
"""
These are template specializations, not instantiations. Please undo
the changes to the comments, because the comments are 100% correct
now, and would become wrong with this patch.
template<class T, class U> struct foo { };
using F = foo<int, int>; // #1
template<class T> struct foo<T, void> { }; // #2
template<> struct foo<void, void> { }; // #3
#1 is a *specialization* of the class template foo. It is
*instantiated* when you construct one or depend on its size, or its
members.
#2 is a *partial specialization* and #3 is an explicit specialization.
But #1 is a speclialization, not an instantiation.
Instantiation is a process that happens during compilation. A
specialization is a type (or function, or variable) generated from a
template by substituting arguments for the template parameters. The
python type printer matches specializations.
- def __init__(self, match, name):
- self.match = match
+ def __init__(self, template, name, targ1):
Is there a reason to require targ1 here, instead of making it
optional, by using =None as the default?
+ self.template = template
self.name = name
+ self.targ1 = targ1
self.enabled = True
class _recognizer(object):
"The recognizer class for FilteringTypePrinter."
- def __init__(self, match, name):
- self.match = match
+ def __init__(self, template, name, targ1):
+ self.template = template
self.name = name
+ self.targ1 = targ1
self.type_obj = None
def recognize(self, type_obj):
"""
- If type_obj starts with self.match and is the same type as
+ If type_obj starts with self.template and is the same type as
self.name then return self.name, otherwise None.
"""
if type_obj.tag is None:
return None
if self.type_obj is None:
- if not type_obj.tag.startswith(self.match):
+ if self.targ1 is not None:
+ if not
type_obj.tag.startswith('{}<{}'.format(self.template, self.targ1)):
I wonder if we should make targ1 a gdb.Type object, not just a string.
That seems like it would be better. The add_on_type_printer function
could still accept a string, and then call gdb.lookup_type(targ1) to
get a gdb.Type. We can change that later though.
OK for trunk with the comments fixed to say "specialization" again.
