Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFA] print error message if (auto) disassembly failed
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:16:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090417221610.GX7585@adacore.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090417173407.GC13377@caradoc.them.org>

> > 2009-04-17  Joel Brobecker  <brobecker@adacore.com>
> > 
> >         * stack.c (do_gdb_disassembly): Print an error message if an error
> >         was thrown while trying to perform the disassembly.
> > 
> > I'm currently testing this patch on x86_64-linux, but I don't really
> > expect any problem.
> 
> My two cents: this should really match whatever x/i does.  Is that
> code now shared, or does it still have the old (IMO perfectly fine)
> error message?

The code is not shared. They both call gdbarch_print_insn to print
the instruction but from different code paths. In the "x/i" case,
I think that the top-level command exception handler ends up printing
the exception message.  In the case at hand, do_gdb_disassembly traps
the exception. What my first patch does is just print the exception
message to give the user a clue of what's going on.  What the second
patch adds is a bit of extra code to handle memory errors differently,
in order to print the shorter error message.

Since we can decide on the particular error message we want for
memory errors is only midly related to the issue of printing something,
I suggest I commit my first patch, and let Eli promote the idea of
his shorter error message. I agree to write and test the change,
but I don't want to spend time discussing something that I think
is only cosmetic.

-- 
Joel


  reply	other threads:[~2009-04-17 22:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-04-16 17:39 Joel Brobecker
2009-04-16 17:52 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-04-16 18:02   ` Joel Brobecker
2009-04-16 18:16     ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-04-16 19:07       ` Joel Brobecker
2009-04-16 21:37         ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-04-16 21:54           ` Joel Brobecker
2009-04-16 22:09             ` Pedro Alves
2009-04-17  9:10             ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-04-16 23:57           ` Joel Brobecker
2009-04-17  7:33             ` Hui Zhu
2009-04-17  9:22             ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-04-17 15:50               ` Joel Brobecker
2009-04-17 17:34             ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2009-04-17 22:16               ` Joel Brobecker [this message]
2009-04-18  6:48                 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-04-16 22:23 ` Tom Tromey
2009-04-16 23:59   ` Joel Brobecker
2009-04-17  5:33     ` Hui Zhu
2009-04-17 15:57       ` Joel Brobecker
2009-04-17 16:16         ` Tom Tromey
2009-04-17 16:59         ` Hui Zhu
2009-04-17  9:23     ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-04-17 10:05       ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-04-23 18:49 ` Joel Brobecker

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20090417221610.GX7585@adacore.com \
    --to=brobecker@adacore.com \
    --cc=eliz@gnu.org \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox