From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26530 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2007 09:49:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 26522 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Feb 2007 09:49:20 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from lon-del-03.spheriq.net (HELO lon-del-03.spheriq.net) (195.46.50.99) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:49:12 +0000 Received: from lon-out-01.spheriq.net ([195.46.50.129]) by lon-del-03.spheriq.net with ESMTP id l119n9dT031552 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:49:09 GMT Received: from lon-cus-01.spheriq.net (lon-cus-01.spheriq.net [195.46.50.37]) by lon-out-01.spheriq.net with ESMTP id l119n8iH005632 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:49:08 GMT Received: from beta.dmz-eu.st.com (beta.dmz-eu.st.com [164.129.1.35]) by lon-cus-01.spheriq.net with ESMTP id l119n3ts000412 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:49:08 GMT Received: from zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (ns2.st.com [164.129.230.9]) by beta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id CE0C5DA43 for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:49:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail1.cro.st.com (mail1.cro.st.com [164.129.40.131]) by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 30E7D4730C for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2007 09:49:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [164.129.44.95] (crx595.cro.st.com [164.129.44.95]) by mail1.cro.st.com (MOS 3.7.5a-GA) with ESMTP id CJP86998 (AUTH "denis pilat"); Thu, 1 Feb 2007 10:49:00 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <45C1B78C.60605@st.com> Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 09:49:00 -0000 From: Denis PILAT User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061206) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches Subject: Re: [RFC] varobj deletion after the binary has changed References: <45B60056.6030704@st.com> <20070123124457.GA1600@nevyn.them.org> <45B63A49.4010609@st.com> <45B8E8A8.9040904@st.com> <17849.12231.246980.478169@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070125232731.GA30178@nevyn.them.org> <45BDEAEC.1050006@st.com> <17854.28971.170898.231523@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <45C0B042.9040308@st.com> <17857.2617.164646.935952@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> In-Reply-To: <17857.2617.164646.935952@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2007-02/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 Nick Roberts wrote: > > /* sanity check: have we been passed a pointer? */ > > if (changelist == NULL) > > - return -1; > > + return WRONG_PARAM; > > > > /* Only root variables can be updated... */ > > if (!is_root_p (*varp)) > > /* Not a root var */ > > - return -1; > > + return WRONG_PARAM; > > + > > + if (!(*varp)->root->is_valid) > > + return INVALID; > > OK I hadn't noticed the distinction between WRONG_PARAM and INVALID. I think > it would be better to throw an error in the case of WRONG_PARAM, otherwise > changes to leaf values may go unnoticed. But this is a separate change. > Yes it is, and the bigger is this patch the less it has chance to be approved. > I've not checked the test but I think the English could be improved and > different names used: > Oh really?? I though my froggy English was the best. Anyway thanks for your comments, I'll take them into account once you've tested the test and once Daniel gives me a feedback about the C part of the patch. -- Denis