augusto2112 marked an inline comment as done. augusto2112 added inline comments.
================ Comment at: lldb/source/Commands/CommandObjectDWIMPrint.cpp:133-135 + << "note: object description requested, but type doesn't implement " + "a custom object description. Consider using \"p\" instead of " + "\"po\"\n"; ---------------- kastiglione wrote: > ok, I have a new suggestion. Since lldb will warn only once per target, and > not per type, I think this note should be reworded to focus the guidance on > the format of the output, not the type. > > My concern is lldb emits basically "this type doesn't need a `po`", but then > the diagnostic is printed for only one type, and never tells you about other > types. How will people know that other types should use `p` not `po`? > > If the message were on the format, and not the type, then I think it makes > more sense as a once per target message. > > A possible rewording: > > note: this `po` used the default object description, which shows none of > > the objects properties. When you output like this, consider using `p` > > instead of `po` when you see such output. Personally I find the new message a bit more confusing for users to understand. Maybe: ``` note: object description requested, but type doesn't implement a custom object description. Consider using "p" instead of "po" (this warning will only be displayed once per debug session). ``` What do you think? ================ Comment at: lldb/source/Commands/CommandObjectDWIMPrint.cpp:158-162 + StreamString temp_result_stream; + valobj_sp->Dump(temp_result_stream, dump_options); + llvm::StringRef output = temp_result_stream.GetString(); + maybe_add_hint(output); + result.GetOutputStream() << output; ---------------- kastiglione wrote: > augusto2112 wrote: > > kastiglione wrote: > > > what do you think of passing in the `result`'s stream into > > > `maybe_add_hint`? Perhaps I am overlooking something, but I wonder if it > > > would simplify the code to reuse the one stream, instead of separating > > > and then combining two streams. > > I need the two streams to print it in the correct order (hint first, result > > later) > do we have a precedent for before vs after? Maybe I need to see some > examples, but I think it should be after. My logic is "here's the output you > requested, and then here's a note about it". Also the note would be next to > the next prompt, so maybe closer to the eyes? Just figured it was worth > hashing out. DWIM print will add the note beforehand, I don't have strong feelings about this either way though. We'd probably still need 2 streams though, since we only want to match what's added by the value object's `Dump`, and nothing that may already be on the stream. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D153489/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D153489 _______________________________________________ lldb-commits mailing list lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
