Re: [PATCH v2 5/9] gdb/python: allow ref_ptr<T, Policy>::new_reference to accept subclasses of T

[Matthieu Longo <matthieu.longo@arm.com>]

On 03/03/2026 18:18, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> Matthieu Longo <matthieu.longo@arm.com> writes:
> 
>> When ref_ptr<T,Policy>::new_reference() is specialized for 'PyObject'
>> (i.e. gdbpy_ref<>), it currently requires the argument type to be exactly
>> 'PyObject *'. As a result, pointers to subclasses of 'PyObject' must be
>> explicitly cast before being passed, making call sites unnecessarily
>> verbose.
> 
>> This patch makes ref_ptr<T,Policy>::new_reference() a template method
>> that accepts both T and subclasses of T, performing the cast to 'T *'
>> internally when needed. This removes redundant casts at call sites
>> without changing behavior.
> 
> See this series
> 
> https://inbox.sourceware.org/gdb-patches/20260221-python-ref-simplif-v1-0-5b06f48d3096@tromey.com/
> 
> I can land that this week if it's convenient.
> 
> Tom

After a deeper examination, I am not sure that your series helps much for this patch.

* Case 1: return value from the registry.

PyObject *result = (PyObject *) cfpy_inferior_corefile_data_key.get (inf);
   if (result != nullptr)
     return gdbpy_ref<>::new_reference (result);

If I had gdbpy_borrowed_ref available, I could replace the code above by something like:
gdbpy_borrowed_ref result = cfpy_inferior_corefile_data_key.get (inf);
if (result != nullptr)
   return result; /* assuming that gdbpy_ref<> would have a constructor taking gdbpy_borrowed_ref. */


* Case 2: registration of the new object in the registry and return the value.

gdbpy_ref<corefile_object> object
     (PyObject_New (corefile_object, &corefile_object_type));
...
cfpy_inferior_corefile_data_key.set (inf, object.get ());
return gdbpy_ref<>::new_reference (object.release ());

I could change the code as follows, but I am not sure that it makes the code more readable.

cfpy_inferior_corefile_data_key.set (inf, decltype (object) (object).release ());
return object;

If the registry was storing gdbpy_ref<corefile_object> instead of 'corefile_object *', I guess that it could be simplified even further to:

cfpy_inferior_corefile_data_key.set (inf, object);
return object;

What do you think ?

However, I am getting further from my original objective, which was only flattening the code for upcoming changes.
All those improvements seem to me out of scope of my original patch.

Matthieu