-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.4k
[lldb][DataFormatter] Format libstdc++ unique_ptr like we do libc++ #146909
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
Michael137
merged 5 commits into
llvm:main
from
Michael137:lldb/libstdcpp-unique_ptr-summary
Jul 4, 2025
+72
−61
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
9963727
[lldb][DataFormatter] Format libstdc++ unique_ptr like we do libc++
Michael137 63066cc
fixup! python format
Michael137 84de12d
fixup! remove early-return for empty shared_ptrs; refactor weak/stron…
Michael137 bd20056
fixup! uncomment subobject constructor test
Michael137 3117231
fixup! python format
Michael137 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The return value is a bit awkward. Happy to consider alternatives.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is it actually needed though? In my experiments, a normally constructed empty shared pointer will have the
__ctrl_
field as null anyway.I was able to construct a nullptr shared_ptr with a non-empty control field using the subobject constructor (
std::shared_ptr<int> si(new int(47)); std::shared_ptr<int> sie(si, nullptr);
), but in that case, maybe we actually should show the weak and shared counts?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good point, don't think the early return is necessary. Let me add that subobject constructor test too
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Applied your suggestion (and refactored the weak/strong count logic in the latest commit). Happy to split that up into a separate PR if this is becoming too noisy.