binutils-gdb/gdbsupport/intrusive_list.h

609 lines
15 KiB
C
Raw Normal View History

gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
/* Intrusive double linked list for GDB, the GNU debugger.
Copyright (C) 2021-2024 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
This file is part of GDB.
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>. */
#ifndef GDBSUPPORT_INTRUSIVE_LIST_H
#define GDBSUPPORT_INTRUSIVE_LIST_H
#define INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE ((T *) -1)
/* A list node. The elements put in an intrusive_list either inherit
from this, or have a field of this type. */
template<typename T>
class intrusive_list_node
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
public:
bool is_linked () const noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
return next != INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE;
}
private:
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
T *next = INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE;
T *prev = INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE;
template<typename T2, typename AsNode>
friend struct intrusive_list_iterator;
template<typename T2, typename AsNode>
friend struct intrusive_list_reverse_iterator;
template<typename T2, typename AsNode>
friend struct intrusive_list;
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
};
/* Follows a couple types used by intrusive_list as template parameter to find
the intrusive_list_node for a given element. One for lists where the
elements inherit intrusive_list_node, and another for elements that keep the
node as member field. */
/* For element types that inherit from intrusive_list_node. */
template<typename T>
struct intrusive_base_node
{
static intrusive_list_node<T> *as_node (T *elem) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{ return elem; }
};
/* For element types that keep the node as member field. */
template<typename T, intrusive_list_node<T> T::*MemberNode>
struct intrusive_member_node
{
static intrusive_list_node<T> *as_node (T *elem) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{ return &(elem->*MemberNode); }
};
/* Common code for forward and reverse iterators. */
template<typename T, typename AsNode, typename SelfType>
struct intrusive_list_base_iterator
{
using self_type = SelfType;
using iterator_category = std::bidirectional_iterator_tag;
using value_type = T;
using pointer = T *;
using const_pointer = const T *;
using reference = T &;
using const_reference = const T &;
using difference_type = ptrdiff_t;
using size_type = size_t;
using node_type = intrusive_list_node<T>;
/* Create an iterator pointing to ELEM. */
explicit intrusive_list_base_iterator (pointer elem) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
: m_elem (elem)
{}
/* Create a past-the-end iterator. */
intrusive_list_base_iterator () noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
: m_elem (nullptr)
{}
reference operator* () const noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{ return *m_elem; }
pointer operator-> () const noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{ return m_elem; }
bool operator== (const self_type &other) const noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{ return m_elem == other.m_elem; }
bool operator!= (const self_type &other) const noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{ return m_elem != other.m_elem; }
protected:
static node_type *as_node (pointer elem) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{ return AsNode::as_node (elem); }
/* A past-end-the iterator points to the list's head. */
pointer m_elem;
};
/* Forward iterator for an intrusive_list. */
template<typename T, typename AsNode = intrusive_base_node<T>>
struct intrusive_list_iterator
: public intrusive_list_base_iterator
<T, AsNode, intrusive_list_iterator<T, AsNode>>
{
using base = intrusive_list_base_iterator
<T, AsNode, intrusive_list_iterator<T, AsNode>>;
using self_type = typename base::self_type;
using node_type = typename base::node_type;
/* Inherit constructor and M_NODE visibility from base. */
using base::base;
using base::m_elem;
self_type &operator++ () noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
node_type *node = this->as_node (m_elem);
m_elem = node->next;
return *this;
}
self_type operator++ (int) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
self_type temp = *this;
node_type *node = this->as_node (m_elem);
m_elem = node->next;
return temp;
}
self_type &operator-- () noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
node_type *node = this->as_node (m_elem);
m_elem = node->prev;
return *this;
}
self_type operator-- (int) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
self_type temp = *this;
node_type *node = this->as_node (m_elem);
m_elem = node->prev;
return temp;
}
};
/* Reverse iterator for an intrusive_list. */
template<typename T, typename AsNode = intrusive_base_node<T>>
struct intrusive_list_reverse_iterator
: public intrusive_list_base_iterator
<T, AsNode, intrusive_list_reverse_iterator<T, AsNode>>
{
using base = intrusive_list_base_iterator
<T, AsNode, intrusive_list_reverse_iterator<T, AsNode>>;
using self_type = typename base::self_type;
/* Inherit constructor and M_NODE visibility from base. */
using base::base;
using base::m_elem;
using node_type = typename base::node_type;
self_type &operator++ () noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
node_type *node = this->as_node (m_elem);
m_elem = node->prev;
return *this;
}
self_type operator++ (int) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
self_type temp = *this;
node_type *node = this->as_node (m_elem);
m_elem = node->prev;
return temp;
}
self_type &operator-- () noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
node_type *node = this->as_node (m_elem);
m_elem = node->next;
return *this;
}
self_type operator-- (int) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
self_type temp = *this;
node_type *node = this->as_node (m_elem);
m_elem = node->next;
return temp;
}
};
/* An intrusive double-linked list.
T is the type of the elements to link. The type T must either:
- inherit from intrusive_list_node<T>
- have an intrusive_list_node<T> member
AsNode is a type with an as_node static method used to get a node from an
element. If elements inherit from intrusive_list_node<T>, use the default
intrusive_base_node<T>. If elements have an intrusive_list_node<T> member,
use:
intrusive_member_node<T, &T::member>
where `member` is the name of the member. */
template <typename T, typename AsNode = intrusive_base_node<T>>
class intrusive_list
{
public:
using value_type = T;
using pointer = T *;
using const_pointer = const T *;
using reference = T &;
using const_reference = const T &;
using difference_type = ptrdiff_t;
using size_type = size_t;
using iterator = intrusive_list_iterator<T, AsNode>;
using reverse_iterator = intrusive_list_reverse_iterator<T, AsNode>;
using const_iterator = const intrusive_list_iterator<T, AsNode>;
using const_reverse_iterator
= const intrusive_list_reverse_iterator<T, AsNode>;
using node_type = intrusive_list_node<T>;
intrusive_list () noexcept = default;
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
~intrusive_list ()
{
clear ();
}
intrusive_list (intrusive_list &&other) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
: m_front (other.m_front),
m_back (other.m_back)
{
other.m_front = nullptr;
other.m_back = nullptr;
}
intrusive_list &operator= (intrusive_list &&other) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
m_front = other.m_front;
m_back = other.m_back;
other.m_front = nullptr;
other.m_back = nullptr;
return *this;
}
void swap (intrusive_list &other) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
std::swap (m_front, other.m_front);
std::swap (m_back, other.m_back);
}
iterator iterator_to (reference value) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
return iterator (&value);
}
const_iterator iterator_to (const_reference value) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
return const_iterator (&value);
}
reference front () noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
gdb_assert (!this->empty ());
return *m_front;
}
const_reference front () const noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
gdb_assert (!this->empty ());
return *m_front;
}
reference back () noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
gdb_assert (!this->empty ());
return *m_back;
}
const_reference back () const noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
gdb_assert (!this->empty ());
return *m_back;
}
void push_front (reference elem) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
intrusive_list_node<T> *elem_node = as_node (&elem);
gdb_assert (elem_node->next == INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE);
gdb_assert (elem_node->prev == INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE);
if (this->empty ())
this->push_empty (elem);
else
this->push_front_non_empty (elem);
}
void push_back (reference elem) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
intrusive_list_node<T> *elem_node = as_node (&elem);
gdb_assert (elem_node->next == INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE);
gdb_assert (elem_node->prev == INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE);
if (this->empty ())
this->push_empty (elem);
else
this->push_back_non_empty (elem);
}
/* Inserts ELEM before POS.
Returns an iterator to the inserted element. */
iterator insert (const_iterator pos, reference elem) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
if (this->empty ())
return this->push_empty (elem);
if (pos == this->begin ())
return this->push_front_non_empty (elem);
if (pos == this->end ())
return this->push_back_non_empty (elem);
intrusive_list_node<T> *elem_node = as_node (&elem);
pointer pos_elem = &*pos;
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
intrusive_list_node<T> *pos_node = as_node (pos_elem);
pointer prev_elem = pos_node->prev;
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
intrusive_list_node<T> *prev_node = as_node (prev_elem);
gdb_assert (elem_node->next == INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE);
gdb_assert (elem_node->prev == INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE);
elem_node->prev = prev_elem;
prev_node->next = &elem;
elem_node->next = pos_elem;
pos_node->prev = &elem;
return this->iterator_to (elem);
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
}
/* Move elements from LIST at the end of the current list. */
void splice (intrusive_list &&other) noexcept
{
if (other.empty ())
return;
if (this->empty ())
{
*this = std::move (other);
return;
}
/* [A ... B] + [C ... D] */
pointer b_elem = m_back;
node_type *b_node = as_node (b_elem);
pointer c_elem = other.m_front;
node_type *c_node = as_node (c_elem);
pointer d_elem = other.m_back;
b_node->next = c_elem;
c_node->prev = b_elem;
m_back = d_elem;
other.m_front = nullptr;
other.m_back = nullptr;
}
void pop_front () noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
gdb_assert (!this->empty ());
gdbsupport/intrusive-list: add owning_intrusive_list It occured to me that `intrusive_list<solib>`, as returned by `solib_ops::current_sos`, for instance, is not very safe. The current_sos method returns the ownership of the solib objects (heap-allocated) to its caller, but the `intrusive_list<solib>` type does not convey it. If a function is building an `intrusive_list<solib>` and something throws, the solibs won't automatically be deleted. Introduce owning_intrusive_list to fill this gap. Interface --------- The interface of owning_intrusive_list is mostly equivalent to intrusive_list, with the following differences: - When destroyed, owning_intrusive_list deletes all element objects. The clear method does so as well. - The erase method destroys the removed object. - The push_front, push_back and insert methods accept a `unique_ptr<T>` (compared to `T &` for intrusive_list), taking ownership of the object. - owning_intrusive_list has emplace_front, emplace_back and emplace methods, allowing to allocate and construct an object directly in the list. This is really just a shorthand over std::make_unique and insert (or push_back / push_front if you don't care about the return value), but I think it is nicer to read: list.emplace (pos, "hello", 2); rather than list.insert (pos, std::make_unique<Foo> ("hello", 2)); These methods are not `noexcept`, since the allocation or the constructor could throw. - owning_intrusive_list has a release method, allowing to remove an element without destroying it. The release method returns a pair-like struct with an iterator to the next element in the list (like the erase method) and a unique pointer transferring the ownership of the released element to the caller. - owning_intrusive_list does not have a clear_and_dispose method, since that is typically used to manually free items. Implementation -------------- owning_intrusive_list privately inherits from intrusive_list, in order to re-use the linked list machinery. It adds ownership semantics around it. Testing ------- Because of the subtle differences in the behavior in behavior and what we want to test for each type of intrusive list, I didn't see how to share the tests for the two implementations. I chose to copy the intrusive_list tests and adjust them for owning_intrusive_list. The verify_items function was made common though, and it tries to dereference the items in the list, to make sure they have not been deleted by mistake (which would be caught by Valgrind / ASan). Change-Id: Idbde09c1417b79992a0a9534d6907433e706f760 Co-Authored-By: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net> Reviewed-by: Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>
2024-08-13 01:09:04 +08:00
unlink_element (*m_front);
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
}
void pop_back () noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
gdb_assert (!this->empty ());
gdbsupport/intrusive-list: add owning_intrusive_list It occured to me that `intrusive_list<solib>`, as returned by `solib_ops::current_sos`, for instance, is not very safe. The current_sos method returns the ownership of the solib objects (heap-allocated) to its caller, but the `intrusive_list<solib>` type does not convey it. If a function is building an `intrusive_list<solib>` and something throws, the solibs won't automatically be deleted. Introduce owning_intrusive_list to fill this gap. Interface --------- The interface of owning_intrusive_list is mostly equivalent to intrusive_list, with the following differences: - When destroyed, owning_intrusive_list deletes all element objects. The clear method does so as well. - The erase method destroys the removed object. - The push_front, push_back and insert methods accept a `unique_ptr<T>` (compared to `T &` for intrusive_list), taking ownership of the object. - owning_intrusive_list has emplace_front, emplace_back and emplace methods, allowing to allocate and construct an object directly in the list. This is really just a shorthand over std::make_unique and insert (or push_back / push_front if you don't care about the return value), but I think it is nicer to read: list.emplace (pos, "hello", 2); rather than list.insert (pos, std::make_unique<Foo> ("hello", 2)); These methods are not `noexcept`, since the allocation or the constructor could throw. - owning_intrusive_list has a release method, allowing to remove an element without destroying it. The release method returns a pair-like struct with an iterator to the next element in the list (like the erase method) and a unique pointer transferring the ownership of the released element to the caller. - owning_intrusive_list does not have a clear_and_dispose method, since that is typically used to manually free items. Implementation -------------- owning_intrusive_list privately inherits from intrusive_list, in order to re-use the linked list machinery. It adds ownership semantics around it. Testing ------- Because of the subtle differences in the behavior in behavior and what we want to test for each type of intrusive list, I didn't see how to share the tests for the two implementations. I chose to copy the intrusive_list tests and adjust them for owning_intrusive_list. The verify_items function was made common though, and it tries to dereference the items in the list, to make sure they have not been deleted by mistake (which would be caught by Valgrind / ASan). Change-Id: Idbde09c1417b79992a0a9534d6907433e706f760 Co-Authored-By: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net> Reviewed-by: Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>
2024-08-13 01:09:04 +08:00
unlink_element (*m_back);
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
}
private:
/* Push ELEM in the list, knowing the list is empty. */
iterator push_empty (reference elem) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
gdb_assert (this->empty ());
intrusive_list_node<T> *elem_node = as_node (&elem);
gdb_assert (elem_node->next == INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE);
gdb_assert (elem_node->prev == INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE);
m_front = &elem;
m_back = &elem;
elem_node->prev = nullptr;
elem_node->next = nullptr;
return this->iterator_to (elem);
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
}
/* Push ELEM at the front of the list, knowing the list is not empty. */
iterator push_front_non_empty (reference elem) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
gdb_assert (!this->empty ());
intrusive_list_node<T> *elem_node = as_node (&elem);
intrusive_list_node<T> *front_node = as_node (m_front);
gdb_assert (elem_node->next == INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE);
gdb_assert (elem_node->prev == INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE);
elem_node->next = m_front;
front_node->prev = &elem;
elem_node->prev = nullptr;
m_front = &elem;
return this->iterator_to (elem);
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
}
/* Push ELEM at the back of the list, knowing the list is not empty. */
iterator push_back_non_empty (reference elem) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
gdb_assert (!this->empty ());
intrusive_list_node<T> *elem_node = as_node (&elem);
intrusive_list_node<T> *back_node = as_node (m_back);
gdb_assert (elem_node->next == INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE);
gdb_assert (elem_node->prev == INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE);
elem_node->prev = m_back;
back_node->next = &elem;
elem_node->next = nullptr;
m_back = &elem;
return this->iterator_to (elem);
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
}
gdbsupport/intrusive-list: add owning_intrusive_list It occured to me that `intrusive_list<solib>`, as returned by `solib_ops::current_sos`, for instance, is not very safe. The current_sos method returns the ownership of the solib objects (heap-allocated) to its caller, but the `intrusive_list<solib>` type does not convey it. If a function is building an `intrusive_list<solib>` and something throws, the solibs won't automatically be deleted. Introduce owning_intrusive_list to fill this gap. Interface --------- The interface of owning_intrusive_list is mostly equivalent to intrusive_list, with the following differences: - When destroyed, owning_intrusive_list deletes all element objects. The clear method does so as well. - The erase method destroys the removed object. - The push_front, push_back and insert methods accept a `unique_ptr<T>` (compared to `T &` for intrusive_list), taking ownership of the object. - owning_intrusive_list has emplace_front, emplace_back and emplace methods, allowing to allocate and construct an object directly in the list. This is really just a shorthand over std::make_unique and insert (or push_back / push_front if you don't care about the return value), but I think it is nicer to read: list.emplace (pos, "hello", 2); rather than list.insert (pos, std::make_unique<Foo> ("hello", 2)); These methods are not `noexcept`, since the allocation or the constructor could throw. - owning_intrusive_list has a release method, allowing to remove an element without destroying it. The release method returns a pair-like struct with an iterator to the next element in the list (like the erase method) and a unique pointer transferring the ownership of the released element to the caller. - owning_intrusive_list does not have a clear_and_dispose method, since that is typically used to manually free items. Implementation -------------- owning_intrusive_list privately inherits from intrusive_list, in order to re-use the linked list machinery. It adds ownership semantics around it. Testing ------- Because of the subtle differences in the behavior in behavior and what we want to test for each type of intrusive list, I didn't see how to share the tests for the two implementations. I chose to copy the intrusive_list tests and adjust them for owning_intrusive_list. The verify_items function was made common though, and it tries to dereference the items in the list, to make sure they have not been deleted by mistake (which would be caught by Valgrind / ASan). Change-Id: Idbde09c1417b79992a0a9534d6907433e706f760 Co-Authored-By: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net> Reviewed-by: Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>
2024-08-13 01:09:04 +08:00
protected:
void unlink_element (reference elem) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
intrusive_list_node<T> *elem_node = as_node (&elem);
gdb_assert (elem_node->prev != INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE);
gdb_assert (elem_node->next != INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE);
if (m_front == &elem)
{
gdb_assert (elem_node->prev == nullptr);
m_front = elem_node->next;
}
else
{
gdb_assert (elem_node->prev != nullptr);
intrusive_list_node<T> *prev_node = as_node (elem_node->prev);
prev_node->next = elem_node->next;
}
if (m_back == &elem)
{
gdb_assert (elem_node->next == nullptr);
m_back = elem_node->prev;
}
else
{
gdb_assert (elem_node->next != nullptr);
intrusive_list_node<T> *next_node = as_node (elem_node->next);
next_node->prev = elem_node->prev;
}
elem_node->next = INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE;
elem_node->prev = INTRUSIVE_LIST_UNLINKED_VALUE;
}
public:
/* Remove the element pointed by I from the list. The element
pointed by I is not destroyed. */
iterator erase (const_iterator i) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
iterator ret = i;
++ret;
gdbsupport/intrusive-list: add owning_intrusive_list It occured to me that `intrusive_list<solib>`, as returned by `solib_ops::current_sos`, for instance, is not very safe. The current_sos method returns the ownership of the solib objects (heap-allocated) to its caller, but the `intrusive_list<solib>` type does not convey it. If a function is building an `intrusive_list<solib>` and something throws, the solibs won't automatically be deleted. Introduce owning_intrusive_list to fill this gap. Interface --------- The interface of owning_intrusive_list is mostly equivalent to intrusive_list, with the following differences: - When destroyed, owning_intrusive_list deletes all element objects. The clear method does so as well. - The erase method destroys the removed object. - The push_front, push_back and insert methods accept a `unique_ptr<T>` (compared to `T &` for intrusive_list), taking ownership of the object. - owning_intrusive_list has emplace_front, emplace_back and emplace methods, allowing to allocate and construct an object directly in the list. This is really just a shorthand over std::make_unique and insert (or push_back / push_front if you don't care about the return value), but I think it is nicer to read: list.emplace (pos, "hello", 2); rather than list.insert (pos, std::make_unique<Foo> ("hello", 2)); These methods are not `noexcept`, since the allocation or the constructor could throw. - owning_intrusive_list has a release method, allowing to remove an element without destroying it. The release method returns a pair-like struct with an iterator to the next element in the list (like the erase method) and a unique pointer transferring the ownership of the released element to the caller. - owning_intrusive_list does not have a clear_and_dispose method, since that is typically used to manually free items. Implementation -------------- owning_intrusive_list privately inherits from intrusive_list, in order to re-use the linked list machinery. It adds ownership semantics around it. Testing ------- Because of the subtle differences in the behavior in behavior and what we want to test for each type of intrusive list, I didn't see how to share the tests for the two implementations. I chose to copy the intrusive_list tests and adjust them for owning_intrusive_list. The verify_items function was made common though, and it tries to dereference the items in the list, to make sure they have not been deleted by mistake (which would be caught by Valgrind / ASan). Change-Id: Idbde09c1417b79992a0a9534d6907433e706f760 Co-Authored-By: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net> Reviewed-by: Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>
2024-08-13 01:09:04 +08:00
unlink_element (*i);
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
return ret;
}
/* Erase all the elements. The elements are not destroyed. */
void clear () noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
while (!this->empty ())
pop_front ();
}
/* Erase all the elements. Disposer::operator()(pointer) is called
for each of the removed elements. */
template<typename Disposer>
void clear_and_dispose (Disposer disposer) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
while (!this->empty ())
{
pointer p = &front ();
pop_front ();
disposer (p);
}
}
bool empty () const noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
return m_front == nullptr;
}
iterator begin () noexcept
{
return iterator (m_front);
}
const_iterator begin () const noexcept
{
return const_iterator (m_front);
}
const_iterator cbegin () const noexcept
{
return const_iterator (m_front);
}
iterator end () noexcept
{
return {};
}
const_iterator end () const noexcept
{
return {};
}
const_iterator cend () const noexcept
{
return {};
}
reverse_iterator rbegin () noexcept
{
return reverse_iterator (m_back);
}
const_reverse_iterator rbegin () const noexcept
{
return const_reverse_iterator (m_back);
}
const_reverse_iterator crbegin () const noexcept
{
return const_reverse_iterator (m_back);
}
reverse_iterator rend () noexcept
{
return {};
}
const_reverse_iterator rend () const noexcept
{
return {};
}
const_reverse_iterator crend () const noexcept
{
return {};
}
private:
static node_type *as_node (pointer elem) noexcept
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
{
return AsNode::as_node (elem);
}
pointer m_front = nullptr;
pointer m_back = nullptr;
gdb: introduce intrusive_list, make thread_info use it GDB currently has several objects that are put in a singly linked list, by having the object's type have a "next" pointer directly. For example, struct thread_info and struct inferior. Because these are simply-linked lists, and we don't keep track of a "tail" pointer, when we want to append a new element on the list, we need to walk the whole list to find the current tail. It would be nice to get rid of that walk. Removing elements from such lists also requires a walk, to find the "previous" position relative to the element being removed. To eliminate the need for that walk, we could make those lists doubly-linked, by adding a "prev" pointer alongside "next". It would be nice to avoid the boilerplate associated with maintaining such a list manually, though. That is what the new intrusive_list type addresses. With an intrusive list, it's also possible to move items out of the list without destroying them, which is interesting in our case for example for threads, when we exit them, but can't destroy them immediately. We currently keep exited threads on the thread list, but we could change that which would simplify some things. Note that with std::list, element removal is O(N). I.e., with std::list, we need to walk the list to find the iterator pointing to the position to remove. However, we could store a list iterator inside the object as soon as we put the object in the list, to address it, because std::list iterators are not invalidated when other elements are added/removed. However, if you need to put the same object in more than one list, then std::list<object> doesn't work. You need to instead use std::list<object *>, which is less efficient for requiring extra memory allocations. For an example of an object in multiple lists, see the step_over_next/step_over_prev fields in thread_info: /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these fields point to self. */ struct thread_info *step_over_prev = NULL; struct thread_info *step_over_next = NULL; The new intrusive_list type gives us the advantages of an intrusive linked list, while avoiding the boilerplate associated with manually maintaining it. intrusive_list's API follows the standard container interface, and thus std::list's interface. It is based the API of Boost's intrusive list, here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_73_0/doc/html/boost/intrusive/list.html Our implementation is relatively simple, while Boost's is complicated and intertwined due to a lot of customization options, which our version doesn't have. The easiest way to use an intrusive_list is to make the list's element type inherit from intrusive_node. This adds a prev/next pointers to the element type. However, to support putting the same object in more than one list, intrusive_list supports putting the "node" info as a field member, so you can have more than one such nodes, one per list. As a first guinea pig, this patch makes the per-inferior thread list use intrusive_list using the base class method. Unlike Boost's implementation, ours is not a circular list. An earlier version of the patch was circular: the intrusive_list type included an intrusive_list_node "head". In this design, a node contained pointers to the previous and next nodes, not the previous and next elements. This wasn't great for when debugging GDB with GDB, as it was difficult to get from a pointer to the node to a pointer to the element. With the design proposed in this patch, nodes contain pointers to the previous and next elements, making it easy to traverse the list by hand and inspect each element. The intrusive_list object contains pointers to the first and last elements of the list. They are nullptr if the list is empty. Each element's node contains a pointer to the previous and next elements. The first element's previous pointer is nullptr and the last element's next pointer is nullptr. Therefore, if there's a single element in the list, both its previous and next pointers are nullptr. To differentiate such an element from an element that is not linked into a list, the previous and next pointers contain a special value (-1) when the node is not linked. This is necessary to be able to reliably tell if a given node is currently linked or not. A begin() iterator points to the first item in the list. An end() iterator contains nullptr. This makes iteration until end naturally work, as advancing past the last element will make the iterator contain nullptr, making it equal to the end iterator. If the list is empty, a begin() iterator will contain nullptr from the start, and therefore be immediately equal to the end. Iterating on an intrusive_list yields references to objects (e.g. `thread_info&`). The rest of GDB currently expects iterators and ranges to yield pointers (e.g. `thread_info*`). To bridge the gap, add the reference_to_pointer_iterator type. It is used to define inf_threads_iterator. Add a Python pretty-printer, to help inspecting intrusive lists when debugging GDB with GDB. Here's an example of the output: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list $1 = intrusive list of thread_info = {0x61700002c000, 0x617000069080, 0x617000069400, 0x61700006d680, 0x61700006eb80} It's not possible with current master, but with this patch [1] that I hope will be merged eventually, it's possible to index the list and access the pretty-printed value's children: (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1] $2 = (thread_info *) 0x617000069080 (top-gdb) p current_inferior_.m_obj.thread_list[1].ptid $3 = { m_pid = 406499, m_lwp = 406503, m_tid = 0 } Even though iterating the list in C++ yields references, the Python pretty-printer yields pointers. The reason for this is that the output of printing the thread list above would be unreadable, IMO, if each thread_info object was printed in-line, since they contain so much information. I think it's more useful to print pointers, and let the user drill down as needed. [1] https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-April/178050.html Co-Authored-By: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@efficios.com> Change-Id: I3412a14dc77f25876d742dab8f44e0ba7c7586c0
2021-06-12 06:28:32 +08:00
};
#endif /* GDBSUPPORT_INTRUSIVE_LIST_H */