This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 3/3] btrace: Remove ui_out cleanups
On 2018-03-05 07:39, Metzger, Markus T wrote:
Hello Simon,
This patch replaces the cleanups that close the list and tuple of the
btrace instruction history output with ui_out_emit_tuple and
ui_out_emit_list.
This allows removing make_cleanup_ui_out_tuple_begin_end and
make_cleanup_ui_out_list_begin_end.
This patch (along with the previous ones in the series) was regtested
on
the buildbot.
diff --git a/gdb/record-btrace.c b/gdb/record-btrace.c
index 15ce760f5a..ddd15c4781 100644
--- a/gdb/record-btrace.c
+++ b/gdb/record-btrace.c
@@ -620,26 +620,25 @@ btrace_find_line_range (CORE_ADDR pc)
static void
btrace_print_lines (struct btrace_line_range lines, struct ui_out
*uiout,
- struct cleanup **ui_item_chain, int flags)
+ gdb::optional<ui_out_emit_tuple> *src_and_asm_tuple,
+ gdb::optional<ui_out_emit_list> *asm_list,
Reference instead of pointer?
I once pointed this out on one of Tom's patches, and he said that in the
caller code, it's more obvious that object is meant to be modified if
you do:
function_that_modifies_object (&object);
instead of
function_that_modifies_object (object);
And I kind of agree with that it is, which is why I've been using
pointers when references would have worked (ok, here the function name
makes it obvious but it's not always the case). In the implementation
of the function, since you use object->field instead of object.field, it
also hints that you're not modifying a local object. But I also agree
that it's really not C++-y to do it this way, so I'll happily change it.
- for (line = lines.begin; line < lines.end; ++line)
+ for (int line = lines.begin; line < lines.end; ++line)
{
- if (*ui_item_chain != NULL)
- do_cleanups (*ui_item_chain);
+ asm_list->reset ();
+ src_and_asm_tuple->reset ();
The SRC_AND_ASM_TUPLE reset () shouldn't be necessary; it is reset ()
in emplace ().
Ok.
- *ui_item_chain
- = make_cleanup_ui_out_tuple_begin_end (uiout, "src_and_asm_line");
+ src_and_asm_tuple->emplace (uiout, "src_and_asm_line");
print_source_lines (lines.symtab, line, line + 1, psl_flags);
- make_cleanup_ui_out_list_begin_end (uiout, "line_asm_insn");
+ asm_list->emplace (uiout, "line_asm_insn");
}
}
Looks good to me, otherwise.
I have not tested it, though. Did you run the gdb.btrace test suite?
You said
you ran buildbot but that might skip gdb.btrace when run on VMs or on
old
hardware.
Please let me know if you want me to run the gdb.btrace tests for you.
A user
branch would be nice in that case.
Yes, I have ran the gdb.btrace/*.exp tests locally on two different
machines and saw no regressions. However, the processors may be a bit
old (Q6600 from 2007 and i5-4310U from 2014), so it's possible that not
all required features are available, and therefore some tests may be
skipped. So if you want to be sure, here's a branch for you to test:
users/simark/btrace-cleanups
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/users/simark/btrace-cleanups
Thanks!
Simon