This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] guile/: Add enum casts
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Simon Marchi <simon dot marchi at polymtl dot ca>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:47:01 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] guile/: Add enum casts
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1446058487-22472-1-git-send-email-palves at redhat dot com> <CAFXXi0mtDwZBXNF1LCe61yEgsU=AcaYz-kQSWiFe6ONpxne2=Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <563123AC dot 2080804 at redhat dot com> <56312449 dot 2010404 at redhat dot com> <56312619 dot 9040609 at redhat dot com>
On 10/28/2015 07:46 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 10/28/2015 07:38 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 10/28/2015 07:36 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>> On 10/28/2015 07:29 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>>>> The status comes from gdbscm_disasm_read_memory returning TARGET_XFER_E_IO:
>>>> return status != NULL ? TARGET_XFER_E_IO : 0;
>>>> Does it make sense that this function returns TARGET_XFER_E_IO, and
>>>> not just -1 (or any other non-zero value) on error? It's an
>>>> all-or-nothing memory read function, unlike those of the xfer_partial
>>>> I would have done a change similar to what you have done in
>>>> target_read_memory&co: make gdbscm_disasm_read_memory return -1 on
>>>> error, and change
>>>> memory_error (status, memaddr);
>>>> memory_error (TARGET_XFER_E_IO, memaddr);
>>>> Would it make sense?
>>> I had the same thoughts when I did the target_read_memory&co patch,
>>> and went through all the memory_error callers. In the end I left
>>> it be because of the IWBN comment:
>>> /* TODO: IWBN to distinguish problems reading target memory versus problems
>>> with the port (e.g., EOF).
>>> We return TARGET_XFER_E_IO here as that's what memory_error looks for. */
>>> return status != NULL ? TARGET_XFER_E_IO : 0;
>>> Either way is fine with me. Doug, what would you prefer?
>>> Hardcode TARGET_XFER_E_IO in the memory_error call?
>> Hmm, reading the comment back, I actually agree with Simon.
>> The comment refers to distinguishing memory errors from something
>> else not memory errors. In that "something else" case, sounds like
>> we wouldn't end up calling memory_error at all. So sounds like Simon's
>> suggestion would be the clearer way to go. WDYT?
> Like this?
> From: Pedro Alves <email@example.com>
> Date: 2015-10-27 17:25:12 +0000
> guile disassembly hardcode TARGET_XFER_E_IO
> Instead of adding a cast at the memory_error call, as needed for C++,
> and have the reader understand the indirection, make it simple and
> hardcode the generic memory error at the memory_error call site.
> 2015-10-28 Pedro Alves <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> * guile/scm-disasm.c (gdbscm_disasm_read_memory): Return -1 on
> error instead of TARGET_XFER_E_IO.
> (gdbscm_disasm_memory_error): Always pass TARGET_XFER_E_IO to
I pushed this one in now.