From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15223 invoked by alias); 19 Dec 2001 23:54:57 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15201 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2001 23:54:57 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Dec 2001 23:54:57 -0000 Received: from rtl.cygnus.com (cse.cygnus.com [205.180.230.236]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id PAA00271; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:54:53 -0800 (PST) Received: (from ezannoni@localhost) by rtl.cygnus.com (8.11.2/8.11.0) id fBJN7lb03048; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:07:47 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: localhost.localdomain: ezannoni set sender to ezannoni@cygnus.com using -f From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15393.7619.791905.386520@localhost.localdomain> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 15:54:00 -0000 To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Elena Zannoni , Fernando Nasser , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] arm-tdep.c: deal with failed memory read In-Reply-To: <3C054819.30605@cygnus.com> References: <15356.17915.602742.140302@krustylu.cygnus.com> <3BFEB3EB.816139A1@cygnus.com> <3C04615A.7020304@cygnus.com> <3C054819.30605@cygnus.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.00 under Emacs 20.7.1 X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00493.txt.bz2 Andrew Cagney writes: > > The arm-tdep.c part is approved. > > > > We desperatly need a better naming convention and clearer semantics (what happens if the function fails due to a target disconnect) for these wrapped functions. gdb_*() is being used by both libgdb and wrapper.[hc] et.al. > > Hmm, this doesn't read very well. Lets try ... > > gdb.h contains gdb_...() libgdb functions. > > wrapper.h contains gdb_...() save functions. > > Two very different interfaces with identical prefixes. I think a > separate naming convention needs to be adopted for save / wrapped / ... > functions. I also think the function semantics need to be more tightly > defined. For instance, a safe function should catch a bad memory read, > should that safe function catch a failure because the target interface > has gone down (tcp connection lost, ...) or because the user entered a > cntrl-c. > > Anyway, food for thought. > > enjoy, > Andrew > I committed the patch and changed the name from gdb_read_memory_integer to safe_read_memory_integer. I haven't committed it to the 5.1 branch, should I?. Elena