This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: printing "variable-sized" registers
- From: Vladimir Prus <ghost at cs dot msu dot su>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 17:52:07 +0400
- Subject: Re: printing "variable-sized" registers
- References: <d7f7dt$b3u$1@sea.gmane.org> <20050530165817.GA24005@nevyn.them.org>
On Monday 30 May 2005 20:58, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, May 30, 2005 at 06:22:19PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I'm working on a gdb port, and have problems with printing certain
> > registers of my target. The problem is that those registers are vector
> > buffers that can hold from 0 to 32 values at any given moment. I would
> > like the 'info registers' command to print exactly the number of values
> > that are present in a buffer. That is, on one invocation I might get 4
> > values printed, and on another 15, depending on the current processor
> > state.
> >
> > However, I don't see an easy way to do this. The
> > 'default_print_registers_info' function uses 'val_print' to print the
> > value, and 'val_print' uses register type (struct type*), which has a
> > fixed size. Anything I can do? Or I should just write arch-specific
> > 'print_registers_info' function?
>
> The last one. The best you can do the rest of the time is going to be
> giving them a type containing the maximum number of values and fill in
> with dummies - maybe also including the count?
This's what I was doing -- assigning "array of 32 uin64s" type to those
registers and they are printed with "info all-registers", but the dummy
values do no look nice when presented to the user.
> If you want "print $reg" to display them nicely, you're going to need
> to teach GDB's type system about it somehow. I have no idea what that
> change would look like or how it would work, but it could be generally
> useful - it's the same concept as prettyprinting a tagged union, I think.
Ok, understood. With the attached patch I get what I want, but I have no idea
if this patch is good or not.
- Volodya
diff -u gdb-6.3-orig/gdb/gdbtypes.h gdb-6.3/gdb/gdbtypes.h
--- gdb-6.3-orig/gdb/gdbtypes.h 2004-10-01 14:23:09.000000000 +0400
+++ gdb-6.3/gdb/gdbtypes.h 2005-05-31 10:19:42.000000000 +0400
@@ -304,6 +304,12 @@
#define TYPE_FLAG_FIXED_INSTANCE (1 << 15)
+
+#define TYPE_FLAG_VARIABLE_SIZED_ARRAY (1 << 16)
+#define TYPE_VARIABLE_SIZED_ARRAY(t) (TYPE_INSTANCE_FLAGS(t) \
+ & TYPE_FLAG_VARIABLE_SIZED_ARRAY)
+
+
/* Array bound type. */
enum array_bound_type
{
diff -u gdb-6.3-orig/gdb/valprint.c gdb-6.3/gdb/valprint.c
--- gdb-6.3-orig/gdb/valprint.c 2004-09-12 20:13:04.000000000 +0400
+++ gdb-6.3/gdb/valprint.c 2005-05-31 11:23:09.000000000 +0400
@@ -774,10 +774,15 @@
elttype = TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (type);
eltlen = TYPE_LENGTH (check_typedef (elttype));
- len = TYPE_LENGTH (type) / eltlen;
annotate_array_section_begin (i, elttype);
+ if (TYPE_VARIABLE_SIZED_ARRAY(type)) {
+ len = *(unsigned int*)valaddr;
+ valaddr += sizeof(unsigned int);
+ } else
+ len = TYPE_LENGTH (type) / eltlen;
+
for (; i < len && things_printed < print_max; i++)
{
if (i != 0)