From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 48264 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2015 19:38:53 -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 48253 invoked by uid 89); 28 Oct 2015 19:38:53 -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 19:38:52 +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 4052F8E24C; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:38:51 +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 t9SJcnsX018781; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:38:50 -0400 Message-ID: <56312449.2010404@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:02:00 -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> <563123AC.2080804@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <563123AC.2080804@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg00669.txt.bz2 On 10/28/2015 07:36 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > 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? Hmm, reading the comment back, I actually agree with Simon. The comment refers to distinguishing memory errors from something else not memory errors. In that "something else" case, sounds like we wouldn't end up calling memory_error at all. So sounds like Simon's suggestion would be the clearer way to go. WDYT? Thanks, Pedro Alves