Re: [PATCH v4] gdb/python: add missing handling for anonymous members of struct and union

[Paul Koning <paulkoning@comcast.net>]

On Oct 18, 2011, at 10:21 AM, <Paul_Koning@Dell.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Phil Muldoon
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:58 AM
> To: Li Yu
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Paul Koning; Tom Tromey
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] gdb/python: add missing handling for anonymous members of struct and union
> 
> Li Yu <raise.sail@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> gdb.Type.fields() missed handling for anonymous members.
>> 
>> This patch fix it, below are details:
> 
> Sorry I missed this patch.  I have some questions.
> 
> Given this functionality, do you have any use-cases in mind for it? Do we really want to include anonymous members in field () output? I ask because I cannot decide if the additional anonymous field information constitutes an API break.  If so we may have to reconstitute this functionality from fields() so that it takes a keyword to turn this behavior on and off.

I raised a related question two weeks ago: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-10/msg00118.html .

It would seem logical for things to be consistent.  That's quite a lot more work than this one patch, but it can certainly be handled as a collection of independent changes.  

Another possible approach is to leave gdb.Type.fields() alone, but supply a little bit of Python code for the gdb python library that implements a recursive iterator.  It's quite easy to do that:

def deepitems (t):
    for k, v in t.iteritems ():
        if k:
            yield k, v
        else:
            for i in deepitems (v.type):
                yield i



	paul