This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH 1/2] In cp_print_value_fields() obey dont_print_statmem=1 explicitly passed from cp_print_static_field()


On 2017-10-18 09:17 AM, Patrick Frants wrote:
> This fixes Bug gdb/13669 (https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13669)
> 
> cp_print_value_fields() in cp-valprint.c optionally skips static members based on options->static_field_print. Additionally cp_print_value_fields() has a parameter dont_print_statmem, which instructs the current invocation to skip static members. The "if () continue" statement (line 236) fails to take into account this parameter and therefore gdb gets into an infinite recursion involving cp_print_value_fields() and cp_print_static_field().

Hi Patrick,

Thanks for taking the time to provide a patch and test case, it's really appreciated.

I haven't looked at the patch in details, as I would need more time to get familiar with that code, but I ran the gdb.cp tests and noticed two failures in gdb.cp/classes.exp:

-PASS: gdb.cp/classes.exp: print csi with static members
-PASS: gdb.cp/classes.exp: print cnsi with static members
+FAIL: gdb.cp/classes.exp: print csi with static members
+FAIL: gdb.cp/classes.exp: print cnsi with static members

The problem seems to be with the message "same as static member..." not appearing.  Before:

 2377 print csi^M
 2378 $39 = {x = 10, y = 20, static null = {x = 0, y = 0, static null = <same as static member of an already seen type>}}^M
 2379 (gdb) PASS: gdb.cp/classes.exp: print csi with static members

After:

 2377 print csi^M
 2378 $39 = {x = 10, y = 20, static null = {x = 0, y = 0}}^M
 2379 (gdb) FAIL: gdb.cp/classes.exp: print csi with static members

You can try running the C++-specific tests by running this in the gdb/ dir:

  make check TESTS="gdb.cp/*.exp"

The test result summary is in testsuite/gdb.sum.  However, some tests are already
broken.  So what you should do is compare the gdb.sum of two test runs, without and
with your patch applied (don't forget to rebuild gdb in between).  To analyze
failures, look in testsuite/gdb.log.

More tips on running the testsuite here:

  https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/TestingGDB

Simon


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]