On 28/07/2026 23:50, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2026-07-02 at 09:57 +0100, Andrew Stubbs wrote:
Ping.
Thanks for the patch, sorry about the delay in reviewing this.
Testing this is usually a bit of a pain. You don't happen to have
a
precanned way of doing this by any chance? :)
I do not have any sort of testsuite. I just did some manual checks.
Given that I rarely touch the world of rtx, you're probably in a
better
position to assess this patch than me. Mostly looks good...
+def reg_name(regno):
+ val_reg_names = gdb.parse_and_eval('reg_names')
+ try:
+ return val_reg_names[regno].string()
+ except:
+ return "pseudo"
I discovered that "reg_names" is actually defined as a macro, which
means it only works in GDB in some contexts (assuming that GCC was
even
built with -g3, which might be just me). The attached patch fixes
this
issue, I hope, by inlining both the internal definitions of the
macro.
+ if name == 'insn' or name == 'call_insn' or name ==
'jump_insn':
+ result += ' %d' % self.gdbval['u2']['insn_uid']
+ icode = self.rtx.XINT(5)
(might want a trailing comment here: # INSN_CODE)
Good idea; done.
+ if icode != -1:
+ result += ' %s' % get_insn_name(icode)
+ else:
+ result += ' <unrecognized>'
+ elif name == 'reg':
+ regno = self.gdbval['u']['reg']['regno']
+ mode = mode_name(self.gdbval['mode'])
+ result += ':%s %d %s' % (mode, regno,
reg_name(regno))
+ #else:
+ #format_ = GET_RTX_FORMAT(code)
+ #for i in range(GET_RTX_LENGTH(code)):
+ # print(format_[i])
...though I see that you're commenting out my old implementation
for
this case. How well does it work? Should we just remove it? Is
any
of it worth saving? IIRC I tried it, had issues with it, and found
the
kludge easier, but that was 13 years ago.
This code only printed the format letters (direct to the GDB console,
without any indication of what they signified), and did not
contribute
anything to the pretty-print string. It was vaguely useful for
developing this code, but not useful to the end user. The new patch
has
removed it.
One other nit: please update the multiline string at the top of the
file, in particular the "RTL expressions use a kludge" part, which
is
no longer true with your improvement.
Now updated with new examples. I've left a reference to the
print-rtl.cc printer because it is so much more comprehensive than
these
basic summaries. I think there's room for both.
Is the new patch OK?
