8000 gh-103049: Support instruction level debugging in pdb by gaogaotiantian · Pull Request #103050 · python/cpython · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content

gh-103049: Support instruction level debugging in pdb #103050

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 10 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

gh-103049: Support instruction level debugging in pdb #103050

wants to merge 10 commits into from

Conversation

gaogaotiantian
Copy link
Member
@gaogaotiantian gaogaotiantian commented Mar 27, 2023 •
edited by bedevere-bot
Loading

@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot mentioned this pull request Mar 27, 2023
Open
5 tasks
artemmukhin
artemmukhin reviewed Apr 4, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor
@artemmukhin artemmukhin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There is one more thing I would like to mention. I think it would be better to use instr instead of inst as an abbreviation for instruction, in both commands and source code. From what I have seen in the project, inst is also used for instance, whereas instr is primarily used for instruction.

@gaogaotiantian
Copy link
Member Author

There is one more thing I would like to mention. I think it would be better to use instr instead of inst as an abbreviation for instruction, in both commands and source code. From what I have seen in the project, inst is also used for instance, whereas instr is primarily used for instruction.

Using instr in the source code sounds like a good idea because that's how dis does it. However, in gdb and lldb, I think they just use stepi and nexti for the LONG version and that kind of makes sense. I think I'll go with that - si and stepi, do not use stepinst or stepinstr.

artemmukhin
artemmukhin reviewed Apr 5, 2023
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor
@artemmukhin artemmukhin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Using stepi and nexti as long versions of commands makes sense for me as well 👍

gaogaotiantian and others added 7 commits April 8, 2023 16:18
@gaogaotiantian
Support assembly display on pdb
5e4538f
@gaogaotiantian
Implement ni and si, do li and lli instead of assem
fc50e51
@gaogaotiantian @artemmukhin
Fixed a typo and use adaptive for instructions
c3af63c 
Co-authored-by: Artem Mukhin <ortem00@gmail.com>
@gaogaotiantian
Fix docstrings and commands
4016fd4 
Used stepi instead of stepinst(other commands too)

Abstracted a function to restore caller trace function
@gaogaotiantian @artemmukhin
Fix docstring for stepi
11d1395 
Co-authored-by: Artem Mukhin <artem.m.mukhin@gmail.com>
@gaogaotiantian
Add tests for instruction level commands
a42a420
@gaogaotiantian
Add docs for instruction commands
116ec5d
@gaogaotiantian gaogaotiantian marked this pull request as ready for review April 8, 2023 23:22
artemmukhin
artemmukhin reviewed Apr 9, 2023
View reviewed changes
gaogaotiantian and others added 2 commits April 9, 2023 11:06
@gaogaotiantian @artemmukhin
Fixed a typo in comment
faabf32 
Co-authored-by: Artem Mukhin <artem.m.mukhin@gmail.com>
@gaogaotiantian
Update some docs and comments
e258bf5
@gaogaotiantian gaogaotiantian mentioned this pull request Apr 18, 2023
Closed
@brandtbucher brandtbucher mentioned this pull request May 4, 2024
Merged
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@artemmukhin artemmukhin artemmukhin left review comments

Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
awaiting review
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
3 participants
@gaogaotiantian @artemmukhin @bedevere-bot
0