Skip to content

[gdb] Better handle typedefs to anonymous unions #195

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 20, 2019

Conversation

cbiesinger
Copy link
Collaborator

When compiled with clang, for a typedef to an anonymous union, gdb
will not be able to find a name and so 'name' is None. When that
happens, we should just not call strip_typedefs to keep a name
to refer to the type.

Because this only happens with clang, I have not written a testcase
for this bug. I did file a clang bug (see link in comment).

This shows up with base::internal::LockImpl::NativeHandle.

@cbiesinger cbiesinger requested a review from sanketj August 19, 2019 21:59
# The type may be a typedef to an anonymous union (e.g.
# base::internal::LockImpl::NativeHandle). In that case, keep the
# typedef name so we have *some* name to refer to this type.
# (This is only and issue with clang,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nit: only an issue

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done

When compiled with clang, for a typedef to an anonymous union, gdb
will not be able to find a name and so 'name' is None. When that
happens, we should just not call strip_typedefs to keep a name
to refer to the type.

Because this only happens with clang, I have not written a testcase
for this bug. I did file a clang bug (see link in comment).

This shows up with base::internal::LockImpl::NativeHandle.
@cbiesinger cbiesinger merged commit 4ba3725 into MicrosoftEdge:master Aug 20, 2019
@cbiesinger cbiesinger deleted the union branch August 20, 2019 19:43
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants