Re: [PATCH 15/16] gdb: make cmd_list_element var an optional union

[Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>]

On 2021-07-23 4:46 p.m., Lancelot SIX wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I plan on spending some more time on it this week end hopefully.
> 
> If you do not mind waiting a bit for my patch to be finalized, and want
> to go with my approach, there is indeed no point merging yours now.  The
> main thing I try to avoid is having both of us working at the same time
> on different solutions of the same problem.  Your approach has the
> advantage of being almost ready, I can wait for it to be stabilized
> before I adapt my work on top on it.  If you are fine waiting for my
> approach, I’ll proceed!
> 
> My plan is to:
> 
> - Improve slightly
>   https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-July/180991.html
>   (use gdb::Requires instead of static assert, include the python
>   binding I forgot because I did not build it, add some selftests of
>   the runtime checks introduced by the getters and getters, and ensure
>   the documentation is adequate).
> - Adapt your patch using std::string on top on my architecture
>   (https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-July/180921.html).
> - Add a new patch that allows the use of setter / getter (based on what
>   was is drafted in
>   https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-July/181037.html).
>   As a side note, the storage of user provided getter / setter functions
>   is done using a unions (void* is not an appropriate for that).  It is
>   possible to use the same approach to create getters and setters around
>   the union of pointers you provide in your patch (but this would require
>   some work, obviously).
> 
> Does that makes sense?

Yeah, the only thing I would ask: could you verify whether the approach
of allowing getters / setters that you envision can work with my
work-in-progress patch here?  Or if my patch can be changed to work with
your approach.

    https://review.lttng.org/c/binutils-gdb/+/5831

The reason for all this churn and refactor is to fix some bugs (as
described in the commit log of the patch), so I want to make sure
there's a way forward.

Also, could you provide a git branch with your latest patch?  It will be
easier than figuring out on what to apply it.

Simon