From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6324 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2013 17:24:25 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 6309 invoked by uid 89); 24 Jun 2013 17:24:25 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:24:24 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5OHONLb019942 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:24:23 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r5OHOMgm007814; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:24:22 -0400 Message-ID: <51C880C5.6050307@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:25:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130514 Thunderbird/17.0.6 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/16] push remote_desc into struct remote_state References: <1371835506-15691-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <1371835506-15691-5-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1371835506-15691-5-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg00659.txt.bz2 This is OK. A comment on something that caught my eye: On 06/21/2013 06:24 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > @@ -10194,8 +10202,9 @@ remote_file_get (const char *remote_file, const char *local_file, int from_tty) > FILE *file; > gdb_byte *buffer; > ULONGEST offset; > + struct remote_state *rs = get_remote_state (); > > - if (!remote_desc) > + if (!rs->remote_desc) > error (_("command can only be used with remote target")); This looks conceptually fishy. A rs == NULL check would be less surprising. After all, if we were multi-target already, and not using the remote target, get_remote_state would most naturally return NULL. But if not using the remote target, we probably shouldn't be getting here anyway. remote_file_get could nowadays be using the target_fileio_XXX methods instead of remote_hostio_XXX, and therefore the command could be generalized to work with all targets. Something to keep in mind, and file under fix-it-later... Not sure we have tests for these commands that try them when not connected to a remote target. -- Pedro Alves