[Lldb-commits] [PATCH] D153489: [lldb] Print hint if object description is requested but not implemented

[Dave Lee via Phabricator via lldb-commits]

kastiglione 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";
----------------
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.


================
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;
----------------
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.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D153489/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D153489