From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-79450-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 5155 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2011 19:27:02 -0000
Received: (qmail 5140 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Mar 2011 19:27:01 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Mar 2011 19:26:56 +0000
Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1])	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p28JPNKe016139;	Tue, 8 Mar 2011 20:25:23 +0100 (CET)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost)	by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id p28JPKb4008277;	Tue, 8 Mar 2011 20:25:20 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 19:41:00 -0000
Message-Id: <201103081925.p28JPKb4008277@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: pedro@codesourcery.com
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, msnyder@vmware.com, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com
In-reply-to: <201103081858.43441.pedro@codesourcery.com> (message from Pedro	Alves on Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:58:43 +0000)
Subject: Re: [RFA] i386-tdep.c, check target_read_memory for error.
References: <4D715BB0.8030506@vmware.com> <201103072226.p27MQ8Zp004631@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <4D767783.4090703@vmware.com> <201103081858.43441.pedro@codesourcery.com>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg00563.txt.bz2

> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 18:58:43 +0000
> 
> On Tuesday 08 March 2011 18:37:55, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > @@ -1221,7 +1231,8 @@ i386_skip_noop (CORE_ADDR pc)
> >        if (op == 0x90) 
> >         {
> >           pc += 1;
> > -         target_read_memory (pc, &op, 1);
> > +         if (target_read_memory (pc, &op, 1))
> > +           return pc;
> 
> I think you're meant to return PC as it was at function
> start.  Note the pc += 1 above.  There are other instances
> in the patch.

Those are actually fine.  Skipping nop instructions is harmless, even
if we get stuck somewhere in the middle.