Since the address is mostly only interesting "when it goes bad" which should be
infrequent, we want to have the value be the easiest thing to pick out. It's a
little harder to tell in isolation, what you're really going to see is
something like:
A:
(int) y = 33
(int) z = 33
(int &) x = 0x00007fff5fbff5e8 (*x = 33)
(int) a = 33
(int) b = 33
B:
(int) y = 33
(int) z = 33
(int &) x = 33 (&x = 0x00007fff5fbff5e8)
(int) a = 33
(int) b = 33
C:
(int) y = 33
(int) z = 33
(int &) x @ 0x00007fff5fbff5e8 = 33
(int) a = 33
(int) x = 33
I think of these B is the easiest to scan for values. It's easiest not to be
distracted by the appended value in that case. A simple (one line) struct
would be similar. Not quite as sure what we should do for structures. I'm not
sure how to do A nicely. I think B would be okay if you did it like:
(int) y = 33
(int) z = 33
(Array) my_array = {
size = 10
head = 0x00007fff5fbff770
} (&my_array = 0x00007fff5fbff5e8)
(int) a = 33
(int) x = 33
But I think C looks nicer in this case:
(int) y = 33
(int) z = 33
(Array) my_array @ 0x00007fff5fbff5e8 = {
size = 10
head = 0x00007fff5fbff770
}
(int) a = 33
(int) x = 33
Jim
> On Aug 28, 2017, at 9:42 AM, Greg Clayton via lldb-dev
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Aug 27, 2017, at 11:59 AM, Johan Engelen via lldb-dev
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>> Consider this code:
>> ```
>> void foo(int& x)
>> {
>> ++x;
>> // Breakpoint
>> }
>> ```
>>
>> Reference parameter `x` is shown like this:
>> ```
>> (lldb) frame variable
>> (int &) x = 0x00007fff5fbff5e8 (&x = 33)
>> ```
>>
>> Should this perhaps be improved? (I find the "&x = 33" a little confusing)
>> Some ideas:
>> A. (int &) x = 0x00007fff5fbff5e8 (*x = 33)
>> B. (int &) x = 33 (&x = 0x00007fff5fbff5e8)
>
> The main issue is what do you want to see when things go wrong? It is nice to
> see what the reference value is. How about:
>
> (int &) x @ 0x00007fff5fbff5e8 = 33
>
> The main issue is we want people to know what is wrong when things go bad:
>
>
> void foo(int& x)
> {
> ++x;
> }
> int main()
> {
> int *int_ptr = nullptr;
> foo(*int_ptr);
> return 0;
> }
>
>
> (lldb)
> Process 60095 stopped
> * thread #1, queue = 'com.apple.main-thread', stop reason = step in
> frame #0: 0x0000000100000f78 a.out`foo(x=0x0000000000000000) at main.cpp:3
> 1 void foo(int& x)
> 2 {
> -> 3 ++x;
> 4 }
> 5 int main()
> 6 {
> 7 int *int_ptr = nullptr;
> (lldb) fr var
> (int &) x = 0x0000000000000000
>
>
> This shows that the reference is clearly bad and is why we currently show the
> reference value. The current method of display tries to display the truth. If
> we cover up the reference then when we display things and things work
> correctly, then we would end up showing it one way, and then how would be
> display things if they are not correct.
>
> If we add case C where we show "@ <address> = <value>":
>
> Current when reference is valid:
>
> (lldb) frame variable
> (int &) x = 0x00007fff5fbff5e8 (&x = 33)
> A. (int &) x = 0x00007fff5fbff5e8 (*x = 33)
> B. (int &) x = 33 (&x = 0x00007fff5fbff5e8)
> C. (int &) x @ 0x00007fff5fbff5e8 = 33
>
>
> When reference is invalid:
>
> (lldb) frame variable
> (int &) x = 0x0000000000000000
> A. (int &) x = 0x0000000000000000 (*x = <error>)
> B. (int &) x = <reference is invalid> (&x = 0x0000000000000000)
> C. (int &) x @ 0x0000000000000000 = <reference is invalid>
>
> It would be a good idea to see what other debuggers do and make sure we use
> what makes the most sense to people. Also we need to think about what gets
> shown for references to simple structs/unions/classes (like "struct Point {
> int x,y; };" and also structs/unions/classes that are have many children as
> all of those cases differ.
>
> I wouldn't be against switching to "(<type>) <name> @ <ref-addr> = <value>"
> way of displaying things.
>
> Anyone else want to chime in?
>
> Greg Clayton
>
> _______________________________________________
> lldb-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
_______________________________________________
lldb-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
