From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31714 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2015 19:36:17 -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 31694 invoked by uid 89); 28 Oct 2015 19:36:16 -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; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:36:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D63B5A2C19; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:36:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t9SJaDwY017889; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:36:13 -0400 Message-ID: <563123AC.2080804@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:00:00 -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: Simon Marchi CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Doug Evans Subject: Re: [PATCH] guile/: Add enum casts References: <1446058487-22472-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg00668.txt.bz2 On 10/28/2015 07:29 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: > The status comes from gdbscm_disasm_read_memory returning TARGET_XFER_E_IO: > > return status != NULL ? TARGET_XFER_E_IO : 0; > > Does it make sense that this function returns TARGET_XFER_E_IO, and > not just -1 (or any other non-zero value) on error? It's an > all-or-nothing memory read function, unlike those of the xfer_partial > interface. > > I would have done a change similar to what you have done in > target_read_memory&co: make gdbscm_disasm_read_memory return -1 on > error, and change > memory_error (status, memaddr); > to > memory_error (TARGET_XFER_E_IO, memaddr); > > Would it make sense? I had the same thoughts when I did the target_read_memory&co patch, and went through all the memory_error callers. In the end I left it be because of the IWBN comment: /* TODO: IWBN to distinguish problems reading target memory versus problems with the port (e.g., EOF). We return TARGET_XFER_E_IO here as that's what memory_error looks for. */ return status != NULL ? TARGET_XFER_E_IO : 0; Either way is fine with me. Doug, what would you prefer? Cast? Hardcode TARGET_XFER_E_IO in the memory_error call? Other? Thanks, Pedro Alves