[Q] Bit field/array/pointer output formatting disambiguation

[Eugene Syromyatnikov]

Hello.

There are some questions about strace users' preference regarding
formatting of bit fields, arrays, and pointers in strace's output. As
of now, square brackets are used for designating all these things,
with the only difference in a separator used for delimiting items in
arrays and bit masks (a combination of comma and space is used for
delimiting array items, and a space is used for bit fields). Examples
from strace(1):
           getgroups(32, [100, 0]) = 2
           sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, [CHLD TTOU], []) = 0

A special case of an array is a pointer reference, which is also
printed using square brackets:
           futex([0x2] /* 0x7fbf7bd730c8 */, FUTEX_WAKE_PRIVATE, 2147483647) = 0

The issue is that an array that contains only a single item may be
confused with a bit mask that has only one bit set. As a solution to
this, it is proposed to add spaces around elements in bit mask output:
           getgroups(32, [100]) = 2
           getgroups(32, []) = 2
           sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, [ CHLD ], [  ]) = 0
           sigprocmask(SIG_UNBLOCK, ~[  ], NULL) = 0

The main problem associated with that change is that It breaks
established output formatting rules that are likely being relied upon
by some. Other significant problem is within the fact that such kind
of output formatting is somewhat unorthodox (having syntactically
significant whitespace).

The other slightly relevant issue is that, as of now, there is no
distinction in the formatting of structures that are referenced by
pointer compared to embedded structures (e.g., no difference of fields
A and B in the output of the following structure: struct { struct
timespec *A; struct timespec B; };); it is proposed to print square
brackets around structures that are referenced by pointer, and the
issue is the same: it will change a lot of exiting output and likely
will break a lot of assumptions.

The solution I can see is to add an option that enables more regular
output, but that would be yet another option some have to pass for
each interactive strace session, and will create the need to have
significant amount of code for handling both legacy and regular output
formatting, which doesn't really help maintainability of the project.

So, maybe someone has any ideas in this regard (a completely different
syntax for bit sets that considers the fact that there are stripped
prefixes for bit constants, for example)?

-- 
Eugene Syromyatnikov
mailto:evgsyr at gmail.com
xmpp:esyr at jabber.{ru|org}