This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Provide useful completer for "info registers"
- From: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>
- To: Andreas Arnez <arnez at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 15:39:12 -0500
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Provide useful completer for "info registers"
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <87h9xnqje8 dot fsf at br87z6lw dot de dot ibm dot com> <87ioi1bs3x dot fsf at redhat dot com> <87vblzp4zb dot fsf at br87z6lw dot de dot ibm dot com>
On Friday, November 28 2014, Andreas Arnez wrote:
>> Hm, this should be "strlen (word)".
>>
>> The "text" will hold the entire line that is being completed, and "word"
>> will hold just the last word, according to the breaking characters being
>> used for this specific completer. For example, consider:
>>
>> (gdb) info registers rsp es
>>
>> In this case, "text" will be "rsp es", and "word" will be "es". Most of
>> the time, you will only be interested in using "word" for the
>> completion.
>>
>> Therefore, the "len" variable should hold "strlen (word)". Also, later
>> in the code you are comparing each register name against "text", but you
>> should be comparing against "word", for the reason explained above.
>>
>> Yeah, it can be confusing :-/.
>
> First I actually had used 'word' here, but then I noticed that the
> completer's notion of words doesn't match how the command parses its
> arguments. If using 'word', the completer behaves like this:
>
> (gdb) complete info registers hello,g
> info registers hello,general
>
> Which I consider a bit strange. However, I realize this may not be a
> real problem for users, and being able to expand multiple arguments
> probably beats this flaw, so I'll use 'word', as suggested.
Yeah. This is a problem with our completer scheme; you can see this
behavior happening also for other commands:
(gdb) complete break hello,ma
break hello,mabort
break hello,madvise
...
And I agree that this may not be a real problem for users (since this
problem exists for a long time apparently).
>> [...]
>>
>> While I understand and like this approach, we have a function that does
>> the "strncmp" dance for you. All you need to do is provide a list of
>> possible candidates (char **), and the word being completed. I gave it
>> a try and hacked your patch to do that. The resulting patch is
>> attached, feel free to use it if you like the approach.
>
> Thanks for the patch! Indeed I didn't know about complete_on_enum()
> before. But after weighing pros and cons, I still prefer the "strncmp
> dance": It's not longer and needs somewhat less logic, e.g. only two
> instead of three loops and no temporary xmalloc'd buffer. Also, I think
> the code is easier to maintain if signal_completer and
> reg_or_group_completer use the same approach.
Agreed :-). Although complete_on_enum exists, its interface is in dire
need of a revamp; besides, using it on your function does not make the
code simpler or clearer as you pointed.
> But since it's a short function, I will dissolve the sub-blocks and move
> the variable declarations to the top instead, like your patch does.
Thanks.
>> I'd say this patch also needs a testcase :-). I know that this is
>> architecture specific, so I'd personally be happy with something very
>> simple, maybe testing only one or two architectures would be enough.
>
> Yes, a test case would probably be adequate. I'll try it in an
> architecture-independent way and include it in the next version.
>
>> Other than that, it is fine by me (not an approval). Thanks for doing
>> that.
>
> Thanks for looking at this, and for your feedback. Much appreciated.
No, thank you! :-)
--
Sergio
GPG key ID: 0x65FC5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/