[RFC] confusing comment in memory_xfer_partial

[RFC] confusing comment in memory_xfer_partial

[Doug Evans]

Hi.  I don't understand this comment in memory_xfer_partial.
The code has already checked for writing to read-only memory
and reading from write-only memory.  And in this `else' clause
we know readbuf is NULL.
Can you elaborate on what the comment is about?
Preserve who's const correctness?

2008-08-05  Doug Evans  <dje@google.com>

	* target.c (memory_xfer_partial): Delete outdated comment.

Index: target.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/target.c,v
retrieving revision 1.169
diff -u -p -u -p -r1.169 target.c
--- target.c	9 Jul 2008 22:42:42 -0000	1.169
+++ target.c	6 Aug 2008 05:15:03 -0000
@@ -1071,9 +1071,6 @@ memory_xfer_partial (struct target_ops *
 	res = dcache_xfer_memory (target_dcache, memaddr, readbuf,
 				  reg_len, 0);
       else
-	/* FIXME drow/2006-08-09: If we're going to preserve const
-	   correctness dcache_xfer_memory should take readbuf and
-	   writebuf.  */
 	res = dcache_xfer_memory (target_dcache, memaddr,
 				  (void *) writebuf,
 				  reg_len, 1);

Re: [RFC] confusing comment in memory_xfer_partial

[Doug Evans]

Ah.  "Never mind."

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
> Hi.  I don't understand this comment in memory_xfer_partial.
> The code has already checked for writing to read-only memory
> and reading from write-only memory.  And in this `else' clause
> we know readbuf is NULL.
> Can you elaborate on what the comment is about?
> Preserve who's const correctness?
>
> 2008-08-05  Doug Evans  <dje@google.com>
>
>        * target.c (memory_xfer_partial): Delete outdated comment.
>
> Index: target.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/target.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.169
> diff -u -p -u -p -r1.169 target.c
> --- target.c    9 Jul 2008 22:42:42 -0000       1.169
> +++ target.c    6 Aug 2008 05:15:03 -0000
> @@ -1071,9 +1071,6 @@ memory_xfer_partial (struct target_ops *
>        res = dcache_xfer_memory (target_dcache, memaddr, readbuf,
>                                  reg_len, 0);
>       else
> -       /* FIXME drow/2006-08-09: If we're going to preserve const
> -          correctness dcache_xfer_memory should take readbuf and
> -          writebuf.  */
>        res = dcache_xfer_memory (target_dcache, memaddr,
>                                  (void *) writebuf,
>                                  reg_len, 1);
>
>

Re: [RFC] confusing comment in memory_xfer_partial

[Doug Evans]

drow@google.com?  A comedy of errors tonight, sigh.
[That's what I get for switching back and forth between mail programs.]

On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:28 PM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
> Ah.  "Never mind."
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
>> Hi.  I don't understand this comment in memory_xfer_partial.
>> The code has already checked for writing to read-only memory
>> and reading from write-only memory.  And in this `else' clause
>> we know readbuf is NULL.
>> Can you elaborate on what the comment is about?
>> Preserve who's const correctness?
>>
>> 2008-08-05  Doug Evans  <dje@google.com>
>>
>>        * target.c (memory_xfer_partial): Delete outdated comment.
>>
>> Index: target.c
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/target.c,v
>> retrieving revision 1.169
>> diff -u -p -u -p -r1.169 target.c
>> --- target.c    9 Jul 2008 22:42:42 -0000       1.169
>> +++ target.c    6 Aug 2008 05:15:03 -0000
>> @@ -1071,9 +1071,6 @@ memory_xfer_partial (struct target_ops *
>>        res = dcache_xfer_memory (target_dcache, memaddr, readbuf,
>>                                  reg_len, 0);
>>       else
>> -       /* FIXME drow/2006-08-09: If we're going to preserve const
>> -          correctness dcache_xfer_memory should take readbuf and
>> -          writebuf.  */
>>        res = dcache_xfer_memory (target_dcache, memaddr,
>>                                  (void *) writebuf,
>>                                  reg_len, 1);
>>
>>
>