bpo-33294: Support complex expressions for py-print command. #6481

marxin · 2018-04-15T19:33:17Z

The patch is based on a blog post: http://kouk.surukle.me/2014/09/25/debugging-python-objects-and-fields-with-gdb/.
Adding him: @kouk

Purpose of the pull request is to support more complex expressions for py-print command.
Small example:

(gdb) py-print self
local 'self' = <OptimizationLevel(level='', options=[<MarchFlag(name='-mtune=', options={'x86_64': ('native', 'i386', 'i486', 'i586', 'pentium', 'lakemont', 'pentium-mmx', 'pentiumpro', 'i686', 'pentium2', 'pentium3', 'pentium3m', 'pentium-m', 'pentium4', 'pentium4m', 'prescott', 'nocona', 'core2', 'nehalem', 'westmere', 'sandybridge', 'ivybridge', 'haswell', 'broadwell', 'skylake', 'bonnell', 'silvermont', 'knl', 'skylake-avx512', 'k6', 'k6-2', 'k6-3', 'athlon', 'athlon-tbird', 'athlon-4', 'athlon-xp', 'athlon-mp', 'k8', 'opteron', 'athlon64', 'athlon-fx', 'k8-sse3', 'opteron-sse3', 'athlon64-sse3', 'amdfam10', 'barcelona', 'bdver1', 'bdver2', 'bdver3', 'bdver4', 'znver1', 'btver1', 'btver2', 'winchip-c6', 'winchip2', 'c3', 'c3-2', 'geode'), 'ppc64': ['401', '403', '405', '405fp', '440', '440fp', '464', '464fp', '476', '476fp', '505', '601', '602', '603', '603e', '604', '604e', '620', '630', '740', '7400', '7450', '750', '801', '821', '823', '860', '970', '8540', 'a2', 'e300c2', 'e300c3', 'e500mc', 'e500mc64', 'e5500', 'e6...(truncated)

(gdb) py-print self.options.0.options.x86_64.3
local 'self.options.0.options.x86_64.3' = 'i586'

I consider it very handy. For now I support objects, dictionary, tuple and list types of objects.
I guess a test-case and a documentation entry will be needed. But I would first like to get a feedback about the intention of the change.

Thanks

https://bugs.python.org/issue33294

the-knights-who-say-ni · 2018-04-15T19:33:19Z

Hello, and thanks for your contribution!

I'm a bot set up to make sure that the project can legally accept your contribution by verifying you have signed the PSF contributor agreement (CLA).

Unfortunately we couldn't find an account corresponding to your GitHub username on bugs.python.org (b.p.o) to verify you have signed the CLA (this might be simply due to a missing "GitHub Name" entry in your b.p.o account settings). This is necessary for legal reasons before we can look at your contribution. Please follow the steps outlined in the CPython devguide to rectify this issue.

When your account is ready, please add a comment in this pull request
and a Python core developer will remove the CLA not signed label
to make the bot check again.

Thanks again to your contribution and we look forward to looking at it!

marxin · 2018-04-15T19:40:58Z

I've just signed CLA, please recheck it.

pablogsal · 2018-04-17T01:01:53Z

@marxin Please, open an issue in http://bugs.python.org and reference that issue number in the pull request title. More info about the workflow:

https://devguide.python.org/pullrequest/#submitting

marxin · 2018-04-17T07:20:14Z

@pablogsal Thanks. Done that, looks issue-number check needs to be triggered again.

pablogsal · 2018-04-17T07:36:41Z

@marxin Reference the issue number in the PR title. See other PRs for reference. Thanks

marxin · 2018-04-17T07:45:05Z

Thanks @pablogsal. Done that.

davidmalcolm

Thanks for this patch.

The patch is missing test coverage. Please see: Lib/test/test_gdb.py for examples of how to test py-print.

davidmalcolm · 2018-05-25T20:51:13Z

Misc/NEWS.d/next/Tools-Demos/2018-04-17-09-16-40.bpo-33294.J7sTti.rst

Is this missing some line breaks? (i.e. before the "local")

Yes, fixed in newer version.

davidmalcolm · 2018-05-25T20:52:12Z

Tools/gdb/libpython.py

Shouldn't this be a docstring i.e. within the function body?

Yes, fixed in newer version.

davidmalcolm · 2018-05-25T20:55:49Z

Tools/gdb/libpython.py

It seems a bit odd to be using dotted notation to access by index. Is it possible to support square-bracket syntax here, or does it conflict with gdb's usage of square-bracket syntax for C level lookup?

davidmalcolm · 2018-05-25T20:57:01Z

Tools/gdb/libpython.py

Similarly for dict objects; wouldn't square bracket notation be more Pythonic?

Yes, fixed in newer version.

bedevere-bot · 2018-05-25T20:59:18Z

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

pablogsal · 2018-05-31T10:25:35Z

Tools/gdb/libpython.py

+    @classmethod
+    def tokenize_square_brackets(self, expr):
+        '''
+        Tokenize single expression of an array index of key of a dictionary


This docstring is confusing to read, could you elaborate a cleaner version of what this function does?

Should be better now ;)

marxin · 2018-05-31T12:50:51Z

I also added a test-case.

I have made the requested changes; please review again

bedevere-bot · 2018-05-31T12:50:54Z

Thanks for making the requested changes!

@davidmalcolm: please review the changes made to this pull request.

marxin · 2018-06-22T11:29:29Z

May I please ping review process?

davidmalcolm · 2018-06-22T21:21:55Z

Lib/test/test_gdb.py

The skills[defence] syntax seems weird to me; shouldn't this be skills["defence"] or skills['defence']?

davidmalcolm · 2018-06-22T21:22:38Z

Misc/NEWS.d/next/Tools-Demos/2018-04-17-09-16-40.bpo-33294.J7sTti.rst

Likewise here; shouldn't this be ['a'] rather than [a]?

davidmalcolm · 2018-06-22T21:23:12Z

Tools/gdb/libpython.py

Please add test coverage for this error

davidmalcolm · 2018-06-22T21:23:28Z

Tools/gdb/libpython.py

Please add test coverage for this error.

davidmalcolm · 2018-06-22T21:24:08Z

Tools/gdb/libpython.py

Please add test coverage of a tuple

bedevere-bot · 2018-06-22T21:24:41Z

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

marxin · 2018-06-29T13:21:15Z

Thanks @davidmalcolm for review.
I have made the requested changes; please review again

bedevere-bot · 2018-06-29T13:21:18Z

Thanks for making the requested changes!

@davidmalcolm: please review the changes made to this pull request.

marxin · 2018-07-09T07:47:41Z

I would like to remind review @davidmalcolm. Thanks.

marxin · 2018-09-03T07:26:14Z

PING^2

marxin · 2018-12-31T09:14:51Z

PING^3

marxin · 2019-06-30T19:27:46Z

@davidmalcolm: Hi. Can we please move forward with this pull request?

marxin · 2019-12-08T10:09:55Z

@davidmalcolm : ping

marxin · 2020-05-25T10:04:43Z

@csabella Can you please find somebody else from David who can make the patch review?
I've been waiting for quite some time..

marxin · 2021-10-12T15:26:52Z

Bailing out, apparently, there's nobody who would review my patch.

the-knights-who-say-ni added the CLA not signed label Apr 15, 2018

bedevere-bot added the awaiting review label Apr 15, 2018

marxin force-pushed the gdb-py-print-improvement branch 2 times, most recently from bfcc0c3 to 5299070 Compare April 17, 2018 07:18

marxin changed the title ~~Support complex expressions for py-print command.~~ bpo-33294: Support complex expressions for py-print command. Apr 17, 2018

davidmalcolm requested changes May 25, 2018

View reviewed changes

bedevere-bot removed the awaiting review label May 25, 2018

bedevere-bot added the awaiting changes label May 25, 2018

marxin force-pushed the gdb-py-print-improvement branch from 5299070 to 0180f67 Compare May 31, 2018 09:23

pablogsal reviewed May 31, 2018

View reviewed changes

marxin force-pushed the gdb-py-print-improvement branch from 0180f67 to 4b9980e Compare May 31, 2018 12:49

bedevere-bot added awaiting change review and removed awaiting changes labels May 31, 2018

davidmalcolm requested changes Jun 22, 2018

View reviewed changes

bedevere-bot added awaiting changes and removed awaiting change review labels Jun 22, 2018

ned-deily removed the CLA not signed label Jun 22, 2018

the-knights-who-say-ni added the CLA signed label Jun 22, 2018

bpo-33294: Support complex expressions for py-print command.

41c700a

marxin force-pushed the gdb-py-print-improvement branch from 4b9980e to 41c700a Compare June 29, 2018 13:17

bedevere-bot added awaiting change review and removed awaiting changes labels Jun 29, 2018

csabella requested a review from davidmalcolm June 1, 2019 01:16

csabella requested review from davidmalcolm and removed request for davidmalcolm May 23, 2020 17:43

marxin closed this Oct 12, 2021

Uh oh!

bpo-33294: Support complex expressions for py-print command. #6481

bpo-33294: Support complex expressions for py-print command. #6481

Uh oh!

Conversation

marxin commented Apr 15, 2018 • edited by bedevere-bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

the-knights-who-say-ni commented Apr 15, 2018

Uh oh!

marxin commented Apr 15, 2018

Uh oh!

pablogsal commented Apr 17, 2018

Uh oh!

marxin commented Apr 17, 2018

Uh oh!

pablogsal commented Apr 17, 2018

Uh oh!

marxin commented Apr 17, 2018

Uh oh!

davidmalcolm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bedevere-bot commented May 25, 2018

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

marxin commented May 31, 2018

Uh oh!

bedevere-bot commented May 31, 2018

Uh oh!

marxin commented Jun 22, 2018

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

bedevere-bot commented Jun 22, 2018

Uh oh!

marxin commented Jun 29, 2018

Uh oh!

bedevere-bot commented Jun 29, 2018

Uh oh!

marxin commented Jul 9, 2018

Uh oh!

marxin commented Sep 3, 2018

Uh oh!

marxin commented Dec 31, 2018

Uh oh!

marxin commented Jun 30, 2019

Uh oh!

marxin commented Dec 8, 2019

Uh oh!

marxin commented May 25, 2020

Uh oh!

marxin commented Oct 12, 2021

marxin commented Apr 15, 2018 •

edited by bedevere-bot

Loading