From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 47903 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2015 13:21:53 -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 47893 invoked by uid 89); 20 Oct 2015 13:21:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:21:51 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A106C36B1ED; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 13:21:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t9KDLndB028142; Tue, 20 Oct 2015 09:21:49 -0400 Message-ID: <56263FED.3050602@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2015 14:28:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aleksandar Ristovski , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] [nto] Fixes for nto procfs. References: <1444752074-878-1-git-send-email-aristovski@qnx.com> <1444752074-878-3-git-send-email-aristovski@qnx.com> <561FE53A.1050406@redhat.com> <56263704.6000007@qnx.com> In-Reply-To: <56263704.6000007@qnx.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg00355.txt.bz2 On 10/20/2015 01:43 PM, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote: > 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. That shouldn't prevent splitting up changes per logical units. > > While patches may not be minimalistic, I am trying to at least bring > certain rounded-up improvement (e.g. having a debug session). The procfs_pid_to_exec_file change here doesn't look like the sort that would be necessary for plainly having a debug session, for instance. AFAICS, there are a few different changes here: - Implementing procfs_pid_to_exec_file, so that "attach" can work without having the user specify an executable. - Some accommodations for different procfs paths. - Reading TARGET_OBJECT_AUXV off the stack. - Some minor fixes here and there. My trouble, along with having these all mixed up in a single patch, is that as is there no clue on why these changes are necessary at all (either in comments or in the commit log). > > But I will try to make more granulated patches. > Thanks. >> >> 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. This looks better, thanks. -- Pedro Alves