On 2022/05/27 16:03, lijiang wrote:
>      >> If no another gdb setting, we will need to rewrite the parser.
>      >> So first, I'd like to know whether there is no another setting.
>      >
>      > Otherwise, maybe we can patch the gdb code...
>      >
>      > That '{...}' is probably printed in c_type_print_base_struct_union().
>      > And found a comment for c_type_print_base_1() in gdb/c-typeprint.c:
>      >
>      >      SHOW negative means just print the type name or struct tag if there
>      >      is one.  If there is no name, print something sensible but concise
>      >      like "struct {...}".
>      >
>      > Just an idea and clue.
>
>
> I like the good idea.
>
>     Just a rough try and I've not tested enough, but this patch might be
>     somewhat good.
>
>     --- gdb-10.2.orig/gdb/c-typeprint.c     2022-05-27 14:49:53.079853333 +0900
>     +++ gdb-10.2/gdb/c-typeprint.c  2022-05-27 14:47:18.729165094 +0900
>     @@ -1043,6 +1043,8 @@
>          struct type_print_options local_flags = *flags;
>          local_flags.local_typedefs = NULL;
>
>     +  show = 1;
>     +
>          std::unique_ptr<typedef_hash_table> hash_holder;
>          if (!flags->raw)
>            {
>
>
> This looks more reasonable to me. Could you please post a patch with this fix?

Sure.  But more understanding and testing are needed, I will look into it
next week.

Thanks,
Kazu