[v2,07/24] Remove "show" command completers, "set" command completers for string commands
Commit Message
The default command completer is symbol_completer, but it makes no
sense for a "show" command to complete on symbols, or anything else,
really.
I wonder whether we should instead make the default be no completer.
That seems like a much larger/complicated audit/change, so I'd like to
move forward with this version, as it'll be covered by tests. I
noticed this because a following patch will add a new
gdb.base/settings.exp testcase that exercises all sorts of details of
settings commands, including completing the show commands, using new
representative "maint test-settings <type or settings command>"
commands.
Also remove the completer for var_string and var_string_noescape
commands. No point in completing symbols when GDB is expecting a
string.
gdb/ChangeLog:
yyyy-mm-dd Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
* cli/cli-decode.c (add_setshow_cmd_full): Remove "show"
completer.
(add_setshow_string_cmd, add_setshow_string_noescape_cmd): Remove
"set" completers.
---
gdb/cli/cli-decode.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
Comments
>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
Pedro> I wonder whether we should instead make the default be no completer.
I think so. The current default seems wrong in many situations, and
expensive to invoke besides.
One thing bash does is bind certain keys to specific completers, so for
example M-! will complete on command names, no matter the context.
Perhaps gdb could provide something like this as well, for the odd case
where you really want to complete on a symbol- or file-name in an
unusual context.
I'm ok with this patch in the interim.
Tom
On 6/3/19 7:55 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
>
> Pedro> I wonder whether we should instead make the default be no completer.
>
> I think so. The current default seems wrong in many situations, and
> expensive to invoke besides.
>
> One thing bash does is bind certain keys to specific completers, so for
> example M-! will complete on command names, no matter the context.
> Perhaps gdb could provide something like this as well, for the odd case
> where you really want to complete on a symbol- or file-name in an
> unusual context.
That's an interesting idea.
>
> I'm ok with this patch in the interim.
>
> Tom
>
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
@@ -508,6 +508,9 @@ add_setshow_cmd_full (const char *name,
full_show_doc, show_list);
show->doc_allocated = 1;
show->show_value_func = show_func;
+ /* Disable the default symbol completer. Doesn't make much sense
+ for the "show" command to complete on anything. */
+ set_cmd_completer (show, nullptr);
if (set_result != NULL)
*set_result = set;
@@ -632,11 +635,16 @@ add_setshow_string_cmd (const char *name, enum command_class theclass,
struct cmd_list_element **set_list,
struct cmd_list_element **show_list)
{
+ cmd_list_element *set_cmd;
+
add_setshow_cmd_full (name, theclass, var_string, var,
set_doc, show_doc, help_doc,
set_func, show_func,
set_list, show_list,
- NULL, NULL);
+ &set_cmd, NULL);
+
+ /* Disable the default symbol completer. */
+ set_cmd_completer (set_cmd, nullptr);
}
/* Add element named NAME to both the set and show command LISTs (the
@@ -658,6 +666,10 @@ add_setshow_string_noescape_cmd (const char *name, enum command_class theclass,
set_func, show_func,
set_list, show_list,
&set_cmd, NULL);
+
+ /* Disable the default symbol completer. */
+ set_cmd_completer (set_cmd, nullptr);
+
return set_cmd;
}