From 34b27950541eaf717bd02b31d460bab2edfbbbe6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Joel Brobecker Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:26:27 +0400 Subject: [PATCH] rewrite ada_val_print_ref to reduce if/else block nesting depth The logic as currently implemented in this function was a little difficult to follow, due to the nested of if/else conditions, but most of the time, the "else" block was very simple. So this patch re-organizes the code to use fewer levels of nesting by using return statements, and writing the code as a sequence of "if something simple, then handle it and return" blocks. While touching this code, this patch changes the cryptic "???" printed when trying to print a reference pointing to an undefined type. This should only ever happen if the debugging information was corrupted or improperly read. But in case that happens, we now print "" instead. This is more in line with how we print other conditions such as optimized out pieces, or synthetic pointers. gdb/ChangeLog: * ada-valprint.c (ada_val_print_ref): Rewrite by mostly re-organizing the code. Change the "???" message printed when target type is a TYPE_CODE_UNDEF into "". --- gdb/ChangeLog | 7 +++++ gdb/ada-valprint.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- 2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) diff --git a/gdb/ChangeLog b/gdb/ChangeLog index 4c1978c898d..ece68cc26b8 100644 --- a/gdb/ChangeLog +++ b/gdb/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,10 @@ +2014-01-07 Joel Brobecker + + * ada-valprint.c (ada_val_print_ref): Rewrite by mostly + re-organizing the code. Change the "???" message printed + when target type is a TYPE_CODE_UNDEF into + "". + 2014-01-07 Joel Brobecker * ada-valprint.c (print_record): Delete, implementation inlined... diff --git a/gdb/ada-valprint.c b/gdb/ada-valprint.c index 22ec9c0040d..12c84daa48a 100644 --- a/gdb/ada-valprint.c +++ b/gdb/ada-valprint.c @@ -1015,45 +1015,44 @@ ada_val_print_ref (struct type *type, const gdb_byte *valaddr, So, for Ada values, we print the actual dereferenced value regardless. */ struct type *elttype = check_typedef (TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (type)); + struct value *deref_val; + CORE_ADDR deref_val_int; - if (TYPE_CODE (elttype) != TYPE_CODE_UNDEF) + if (TYPE_CODE (elttype) == TYPE_CODE_UNDEF) { - CORE_ADDR deref_val_int; - struct value *deref_val; + fputs_filtered ("", stream); + return; + } - deref_val = coerce_ref_if_computed (original_value); - if (deref_val) - { - if (ada_is_tagged_type (value_type (deref_val), 1)) - deref_val = ada_tag_value_at_base_address (deref_val); + deref_val = coerce_ref_if_computed (original_value); + if (deref_val) + { + if (ada_is_tagged_type (value_type (deref_val), 1)) + deref_val = ada_tag_value_at_base_address (deref_val); - common_val_print (deref_val, stream, recurse + 1, options, - current_language); - return; - } + common_val_print (deref_val, stream, recurse + 1, options, + language); + return; + } - deref_val_int = unpack_pointer (type, valaddr + offset_aligned); - if (deref_val_int != 0) - { - deref_val = - ada_value_ind (value_from_pointer - (lookup_pointer_type (elttype), - deref_val_int)); - - if (ada_is_tagged_type (value_type (deref_val), 1)) - deref_val = ada_tag_value_at_base_address (deref_val); - - val_print (value_type (deref_val), - value_contents_for_printing (deref_val), - value_embedded_offset (deref_val), - value_address (deref_val), stream, recurse + 1, - deref_val, options, current_language); - } - else - fputs_filtered ("(null)", stream); + deref_val_int = unpack_pointer (type, valaddr + offset_aligned); + if (deref_val_int == 0) + { + fputs_filtered ("(null)", stream); + return; } - else - fputs_filtered ("???", stream); + + deref_val + = ada_value_ind (value_from_pointer (lookup_pointer_type (elttype), + deref_val_int)); + if (ada_is_tagged_type (value_type (deref_val), 1)) + deref_val = ada_tag_value_at_base_address (deref_val); + + val_print (value_type (deref_val), + value_contents_for_printing (deref_val), + value_embedded_offset (deref_val), + value_address (deref_val), stream, recurse + 1, + deref_val, options, language); } /* See the comment on ada_val_print. This function differs in that it -- 2.30.2