On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 21:17:08 +0100, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote:
--- a/gdb/target.c
+++ b/gdb/target.c
[...]
@@ -3540,15 +3580,16 @@ target_fileio_read_alloc (const char *filename, gdb_byte **buf_p)
are returned as allocated but empty strings. A warning is issued
if the result contains any embedded NUL bytes. */
-char *
-target_fileio_read_stralloc (const char *filename)
+typedef LONGEST (read_stralloc_func_ftype) (const char *filename,
+ gdb_byte **buf_p, int padding);
+
+static char *
+read_stralloc (const char *filename, read_stralloc_func_ftype *func)
{
- gdb_byte *buffer;
- char *bufstr;
+ char *buffer;
Why you make this change? That is unrelated to this patchset, it is a recent
modification by Pedro.
fad14e531 (Pedro Alves 2013-03-11 12:22:16 +0000 3546) gdb_byte *buffer;
fad14e531 (Pedro Alves 2013-03-11 12:22:16 +0000 3547) char *bufstr;
LONGEST i, transferred;
- transferred = target_fileio_read_alloc_1 (filename, &buffer, 1);
- bufstr = (char *) buffer;
Likewise. I already replied to this change in:
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-03/msg00965.html
Message-ID: <20130326165242.GA12291@host2.jankratochvil.net>
+ transferred = func (filename, (gdb_byte **) &buffer, 1);
Likewise - the (gdb_byte **) cast.
if (transferred < 0)
return NULL;
@@ -3556,11 +3597,11 @@ target_fileio_read_stralloc (const char *filename)
if (transferred == 0)
return xstrdup ("");
- bufstr[transferred] = 0;
+ buffer[transferred] = 0;
/* Check for embedded NUL bytes; but allow trailing NULs. */
- for (i = strlen (bufstr); i < transferred; i++)
- if (bufstr[i] != 0)
+ for (i = strlen (buffer); i < transferred; i++)
+ if (buffer[i] != 0)
{
warning (_("target file %s "
"contained unexpected null characters"),
@@ -3568,9 +3609,14 @@ target_fileio_read_stralloc (const char *filename)
break;
}
- return bufstr;
+ return buffer;
}
+char *
+target_fileio_read_stralloc (const char *filename)
+{
+ return read_stralloc (filename, target_fileio_read_alloc_1);
+}
static int
default_region_ok_for_hw_watchpoint (CORE_ADDR addr, int len)
--
1.7.10.4
Otherwise OK for this part but it needs a new post, thanks for catching the
xrealloc.