From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24789 invoked by alias); 18 Oct 2009 22:51:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 24774 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Oct 2009 22:51:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:51:37 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E47E10927; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:53:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6910710661; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:53:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Mzeb8-00082m-RZ; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:51:34 -0400 Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 22:51:00 -0000 From: "drow@false.org" To: Michael Snyder Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: Seems like a bug in target_read_stack / dcache_xfer_memory? Message-ID: <20091018225134.GA30546@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <4ADB9759.7060305@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4ADB9759.7060305@vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00421.txt.bz2 On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 03:31:53PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > The arguments and return > value are just as for target_xfer_partial The comment is on the logical home of this method, other places should refer to the header: the definition of to_xfer_partial in struct target_ops in target.h. > Anyway, I don't even remember now how I figured this out, but > I *THINK* what all these guys return is either 0 for success, > or an errno value less than zoro. No, they return: the number of bytes actually transfered, zero when no further transfer is possible, and -1 when the transfer is not supported. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery