Ahmed Sayeed <[email protected]> added the comment:
$ cat test.c
struct foo {
int len; https://www.webb-dev.co.uk/category/computers/
int items[];
};
struct foo *p;
http://www.compilatori.com/category/technology/
int main() {
return 0;
}
$ gcc test.c -g -O0 -o test
http://www.acpirateradio.co.uk/category/computers/
$ ./gdb -q -nx --data-directory=data-directory ./test -ex 'python
gdb.parse_and_eval("p").type.target()["items"].type.range()'
Reading symbols from ./test... http://www-look-4.com/category/computers/
/home/simark/src/binutils-gdb/gdb/gdbtypes.h:435: internal-error:
LONGEST dynamic_prop::const_val() const: Assertion `m_kind == PROP_CONST'
failed. http://www.mconstantine.co.uk/category/services/
A problem internal to GDB has been detected,
further debugging may prove unreliable.
Quit this debugging session? (y or n)
http://www.logoarts.co.uk/category/computers/
This is because the Python code (typy_range) blindly reads the high
bound of the type of `items` as a constant value. Since it is a
http://www.iu-bloomington.com/category/computers/
flexible array member, it has no high bound, the property is undefined.
Since commit 8c2e4e0689 https://komiya-dental.com/category/computers/
("gdb: add accessors to struct dynamic_prop"),
the getters check that you are not
http://www.go-mk-websites.co.uk/category/services/ getting a property value of
the wrong
kind, so this causes a failed assertion.
http://www.slipstone.co.uk/category/computers/
Fix it by checking if the property is indeed a constant value before
http://embermanchester.uk/category/computers/
accessing it as such. Otherwise, use 0. This restores the previous GDB
http://fishingnewsletters.co.uk/category/services/
behavior: because the structure was zero-initialized,
http://connstr.net/category/computers/ this is what was
returned before. But now this behavior is explicit and not accidental. But
now this behavior is explicit and not accidental. But now this behavior is
explicit and not http://the-hunters.org/technology/new-robot/ accidental. But
now this behavior is explicit and not accidental. But now this behavior is
explicit and is explicit and not accidental.
http://joerg.li/category/computers/
Add a test, gdb.python/flexible-array-member.exp, that is derived from
gdb.base/flexible-array-member.exp.
http://www.jopspeech.com/category/computers/ It tests the same things, but
through the Python API. It also specifically tests getting the range
from the various kinds http://www.wearelondonmade.com/category/computers/
of flexible array member types (AFAIK it wasn't
possible to do the equivalent through the CLI).
https://waytowhatsnext.com/category/computers/
gdb/ChangeLog:
----------
components: +IDLE -Interpreter Core
nosy: +ahmedsayeed1982, terry.reedy -Anthony Sottile, BTaskaya,
Jeffrey.Kintscher, Julian, Terry Davis, barry, benjamin.peterson, eric.araujo,
ezio.melotti, georg.brandl, gvanrossum, ishimoto, jack1142, lukasz.langa,
ncoghlan, pablogsal, r.david.murray, serhiy.storchaka, steven.daprano,
thautwarm, ulope
versions: +Python 3.8
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<https://bugs.python.org/issue12782>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
