On 15-10-15 01:41 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> It would have been nicer to see this split into a fix/theme
> per patch, and add something to the commit log about each
> fix.  E.g., the aux bits could easily be a separate patch.
> 
> Anyway, this is pretty isolated to NTO bits.

I'm trying to catch up and submit local changes for previous ports.

While patches may not be minimalistic, I am trying to at least bring
certain rounded-up improvement (e.g. having a debug session).

But I will try to make more granulated patches.

> 
> LGTM with the nits below addressed.
> 
> On 10/13/2015 05:01 PM, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote:
> 
>>  	}
>>  
>>        do_cleanups (inner_cleanup);
>> @@ -599,9 +612,40 @@ procfs_files_info (struct target_ops *ignore)
>>  
>>    printf_unfiltered ("\tUsing the running image of %s %s via %s.\n",
>>  		     inf->attach_flag ? "attached" : "child",
>> -		     target_pid_to_str (inferior_ptid), nto_procfs_path);
>> +		     target_pid_to_str (inferior_ptid),
>> +		     nodestr ? nodestr : "local node");
> 
> Write 'nodestr != NULL'.

Done. Here and other places where pointer is used as a logical expression.
...
>> +  if (rd <= 0)
>> +    {
>> +      proc_path[0] = '\0';
>> +      return NULL;
>> +    }
>> +  else
>> +    proc_path[rd] = '\0';
>> +
>> +  return proc_path;
> 
> Either write:
> 
>   else
>     {
>       proc_path[rd] = '\0';
>       return proc_path;
>     }
> 
> Or drop the "else".

Dropped 'else'.

...
>> +
>> +	  if (!tempbuf)
>> +	    return TARGET_XFER_E_IO;
> 
>  if (tempbuf == NULL)
> 
> Can NTO's alloca really return NULL?

Yes.


Attached fixed version of the patch.


Thanks,

Aleksandar Ristovski