From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4900 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2010 05:18:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 4891 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Mar 2010 05:18:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 07 Mar 2010 05:18:03 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A43F82BAB28; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 00:18:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id P1RqZNCizydJ; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 00:18:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D9E02BAAD2; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 00:18:01 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 8D9D1F5894; Sun, 7 Mar 2010 09:17:48 +0400 (RET) Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 05:18:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Kevin Buettner Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] remote-mips.c: Don't error out when a memory read fails Message-ID: <20100307051748.GQ2832@adacore.com> References: <20100305154846.29fab2c4@redhat.com> <20100306040535.GN2832@adacore.com> <20100305230447.032b36d7@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100305230447.032b36d7@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-03/txt/msg00268.txt.bz2 > * remote-mips.c (mips_fetch_word): Add new parameter, `valp'. > Change return value to int. Store value fetched in location > addressed by `val'. Use function's return value as success > or failure indicator. Adjust all callers. This is OK. I realize I was a little unclear in my previous message - the change was pre-approved (assuming you were looking for a second pair of eyes). -- Joel