From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-79289-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 20051 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2011 18:42:40 -0000
Received: (qmail 20041 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Mar 2011 18:42:39 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.2 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 06 Mar 2011 18:42:36 +0000
Received: from mailhost2.vmware.com (mailhost2.vmware.com [10.16.67.167])	by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E62513413;	Sun,  6 Mar 2011 10:42:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com (promd-2s-dhcp138.eng.vmware.com [10.20.124.138])	by mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03DB68EEE4;	Sun,  6 Mar 2011 10:42:35 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4D73D59A.2040908@vmware.com>
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2011 18:48:00 -0000
From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20101201)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>,  Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFA] i386-tdep.c, check target_read_memory for error.
References: <4D715BB0.8030506@vmware.com> <20110306141515.GA1895@host1.jankratochvil.net>
In-Reply-To: <20110306141515.GA1895@host1.jankratochvil.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
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/msg00402.txt.bz2

Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Mar 2011 22:37:52 +0100, Michael Snyder wrote:
>> Call error if target_read_memory fails.
> [...]
>> -  target_read_memory (pc, &op, 1);
>> +  if (target_read_memory (pc, &op, 1))
>> +    error (_("Couldn't read memory at pc (%s)"), 
>> +	   paddress (gdbarch, pc));
> 
> There is the function `read_memory' for such purpose.

I don't understand the objection.  target_read_memory may fail and
return an error code.  Coverity reports that the return value is checked
in 78 out of 97 calling instances.  So what's wrong with checking it now?