gdb: Use puts_unfiltered instead of printf_unfiltered
Commit Message
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Tuesday, 26 November 2019 21:24, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 11/26/19 12:49 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
>
> > The significance of this is that printf_unfiltered writes messages to wrap_buffer, whereas puts_unfiltered pushes them immediately to stdout, resulting in "post-" messages being printed out of order.
>
> It sounds quite surprising that two _unfiltered functions could behave differently
> like that. That sounds like a bug that should be fixed, instead of worked around
> by having to recall to use printf vs puts.
>
> Thanks,
> Pedro Alves
I think the best way to avoid the discrepancy is to treat both fputs_filtered and fputs_unfiltered equally by forwarding both calls to fputs_maybe_filtered.
To avoid recursion, flush_wrap_buffer and fputs_maybe_filtered have had calls to fputs_unfiltered replaced with stream->puts().
While attempting to grok my head around fputs_maybe_filtered, I also noticed that buffer_clearer is being removed by the compiler as dead code.
--
Iain
---
gdb/ChangeLog:
2019-11-26 Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org>
* gdb/ui-file.c (fputs_unfiltered): Move to utils.c.
* gdb/utils.c (flush_wrap_buffer): Call ui_file::puts instead of
fputs_unfiltered.
(fputs_maybe_filtered): Likewise. Remove unused buffer_clearer.
(fputs_unfiltered): Moved from utils.c; call fputs_maybe_filtered.
---
gdb/ui-file.c | 6 ------
gdb/utils.c | 22 +++++++++-------------
2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
---
Comments
Hi Iain, hi Pedro,
Is this message the latest one on this subject? Christian helped us
identify this issue as a regression, and I am wondering whether we want
to try to fix it before the 9.1 release or whether we accept it...
Thanks!
On Tue, Nov 26, 2019 at 11:00:21PM +0000, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
> On Tuesday, 26 November 2019 21:24, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On 11/26/19 12:49 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote:
> >
> > > The significance of this is that printf_unfiltered writes messages to wrap_buffer, whereas puts_unfiltered pushes them immediately to stdout, resulting in "post-" messages being printed out of order.
> >
> > It sounds quite surprising that two _unfiltered functions could behave differently
> > like that. That sounds like a bug that should be fixed, instead of worked around
> > by having to recall to use printf vs puts.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Pedro Alves
>
> I think the best way to avoid the discrepancy is to treat both fputs_filtered and fputs_unfiltered equally by forwarding both calls to fputs_maybe_filtered.
>
> To avoid recursion, flush_wrap_buffer and fputs_maybe_filtered have had calls to fputs_unfiltered replaced with stream->puts().
>
> While attempting to grok my head around fputs_maybe_filtered, I also noticed that buffer_clearer is being removed by the compiler as dead code.
>
> --
> Iain
>
> ---
> gdb/ChangeLog:
>
> 2019-11-26 Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@gdcproject.org>
>
> * gdb/ui-file.c (fputs_unfiltered): Move to utils.c.
> * gdb/utils.c (flush_wrap_buffer): Call ui_file::puts instead of
> fputs_unfiltered.
> (fputs_maybe_filtered): Likewise. Remove unused buffer_clearer.
> (fputs_unfiltered): Moved from utils.c; call fputs_maybe_filtered.
>
> ---
> gdb/ui-file.c | 6 ------
> gdb/utils.c | 22 +++++++++-------------
> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> ---
>
>
> diff --git a/gdb/ui-file.c b/gdb/ui-file.c
> index 71b74bba19..31664d5d65 100644
> --- a/gdb/ui-file.c
> +++ b/gdb/ui-file.c
> @@ -149,12 +149,6 @@ ui_file_read (struct ui_file *file, char *buf, long length_buf)
> return file->read (buf, length_buf);
> }
>
> -void
> -fputs_unfiltered (const char *buf, struct ui_file *file)
> -{
> - file->puts (buf);
> -}
> -
>
>
> string_file::~string_file ()
> diff --git a/gdb/utils.c b/gdb/utils.c
> index f7fae35729..e8cc21c8c4 100644
> --- a/gdb/utils.c
> +++ b/gdb/utils.c
> @@ -1539,7 +1539,7 @@ flush_wrap_buffer (struct ui_file *stream)
> {
> if (stream == gdb_stdout && !wrap_buffer.empty ())
> {
> - fputs_unfiltered (wrap_buffer.c_str (), stream);
> + stream->puts (wrap_buffer.c_str ());
> wrap_buffer.clear ();
> }
> }
> @@ -1688,18 +1688,10 @@ fputs_maybe_filtered (const char *linebuffer, struct ui_file *stream,
> || top_level_interpreter ()->interp_ui_out ()->is_mi_like_p ())
> {
> flush_wrap_buffer (stream);
> - fputs_unfiltered (linebuffer, stream);
> + stream->puts (linebuffer);
> return;
> }
>
> - auto buffer_clearer
> - = make_scope_exit ([&] ()
> - {
> - wrap_buffer.clear ();
> - wrap_column = 0;
> - wrap_indent = "";
> - });
> -
> /* Go through and output each character. Show line extension
> when this is necessary; prompt user for new page when this is
> necessary. */
> @@ -1788,7 +1780,7 @@ fputs_maybe_filtered (const char *linebuffer, struct ui_file *stream,
> /* Now output indentation and wrapped string. */
> if (wrap_column)
> {
> - fputs_unfiltered (wrap_indent, stream);
> + stream->puts (wrap_indent);
> if (stream->can_emit_style_escape ())
> emit_style_escape (save_style, stream);
> /* FIXME, this strlen is what prevents wrap_indent from
> @@ -1816,8 +1808,6 @@ fputs_maybe_filtered (const char *linebuffer, struct ui_file *stream,
> lineptr++;
> }
> }
> -
> - buffer_clearer.release ();
> }
>
> void
> @@ -1826,6 +1816,12 @@ fputs_filtered (const char *linebuffer, struct ui_file *stream)
> fputs_maybe_filtered (linebuffer, stream, 1);
> }
>
> +void
> +fputs_unfiltered (const char *linebuffer, struct ui_file *stream)
> +{
> + fputs_maybe_filtered (linebuffer, stream, 0);
> +}
> +
> /* See utils.h. */
>
> void
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Friday, January 17, 2020 6:56 PM, Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> wrote:
> Hi Iain, hi Pedro,
>
> Is this message the latest one on this subject? Christian helped us
> identify this issue as a regression, and I am wondering whether we want
> to try to fix it before the 9.1 release or whether we accept it...
>
> Thanks!
>
Hi,
As I've already said, there was a follow-up that instead attempted to fix the filtered vs unfiltered inconsistencies that caused the bug.
So rather than this one, I'd suggest looking at the other two here.
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-11/msg01120.html
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2019-11/msg01121.html
Regards
Iain.
@@ -149,12 +149,6 @@ ui_file_read (struct ui_file *file, char *buf, long length_buf)
return file->read (buf, length_buf);
}
-void
-fputs_unfiltered (const char *buf, struct ui_file *file)
-{
- file->puts (buf);
-}
-
string_file::~string_file ()
@@ -1539,7 +1539,7 @@ flush_wrap_buffer (struct ui_file *stream)
{
if (stream == gdb_stdout && !wrap_buffer.empty ())
{
- fputs_unfiltered (wrap_buffer.c_str (), stream);
+ stream->puts (wrap_buffer.c_str ());
wrap_buffer.clear ();
}
}
@@ -1688,18 +1688,10 @@ fputs_maybe_filtered (const char *linebuffer, struct ui_file *stream,
|| top_level_interpreter ()->interp_ui_out ()->is_mi_like_p ())
{
flush_wrap_buffer (stream);
- fputs_unfiltered (linebuffer, stream);
+ stream->puts (linebuffer);
return;
}
- auto buffer_clearer
- = make_scope_exit ([&] ()
- {
- wrap_buffer.clear ();
- wrap_column = 0;
- wrap_indent = "";
- });
-
/* Go through and output each character. Show line extension
when this is necessary; prompt user for new page when this is
necessary. */
@@ -1788,7 +1780,7 @@ fputs_maybe_filtered (const char *linebuffer, struct ui_file *stream,
/* Now output indentation and wrapped string. */
if (wrap_column)
{
- fputs_unfiltered (wrap_indent, stream);
+ stream->puts (wrap_indent);
if (stream->can_emit_style_escape ())
emit_style_escape (save_style, stream);
/* FIXME, this strlen is what prevents wrap_indent from
@@ -1816,8 +1808,6 @@ fputs_maybe_filtered (const char *linebuffer, struct ui_file *stream,
lineptr++;
}
}
-
- buffer_clearer.release ();
}
void
@@ -1826,6 +1816,12 @@ fputs_filtered (const char *linebuffer, struct ui_file *stream)
fputs_maybe_filtered (linebuffer, stream, 1);
}
+void
+fputs_unfiltered (const char *linebuffer, struct ui_file *stream)
+{
+ fputs_maybe_filtered (linebuffer, stream, 0);
+}
+
/* See utils.h. */
void