From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 60874 invoked by alias); 28 Oct 2015 19:46:40 -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 60846 invoked by uid 89); 28 Oct 2015 19:46:37 -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 19:46:36 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF6B5A3803; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:46:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t9SJkXZ8013327; Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:46:34 -0400 Message-ID: <56312619.9040609@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> <56312449.2010404@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <56312449.2010404@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg00670.txt.bz2 On 10/28/2015 07:38 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > 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? Like this? From: Pedro Alves Date: 2015-10-27 17:25:12 +0000 guile disassembly hardcode TARGET_XFER_E_IO Instead of adding a cast at the memory_error call, as needed for C++, and have the reader understand the indirection, make it simple and hardcode the generic memory error at the memory_error call site. gdb/ChangeLog: 2015-10-28 Pedro Alves * guile/scm-disasm.c (gdbscm_disasm_read_memory): Return -1 on error instead of TARGET_XFER_E_IO. (gdbscm_disasm_memory_error): Always pass TARGET_XFER_E_IO to memory_error. --- gdb/guile/scm-disasm.c | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/gdb/guile/scm-disasm.c b/gdb/guile/scm-disasm.c index 78b38df..c9e940d 100644 --- a/gdb/guile/scm-disasm.c +++ b/gdb/guile/scm-disasm.c @@ -119,9 +119,8 @@ gdbscm_disasm_read_memory (bfd_vma memaddr, bfd_byte *myaddr, status = gdbscm_with_guile (gdbscm_disasm_read_memory_worker, &data); /* 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; + with the port (e.g., EOF). */ + return status != NULL ? -1 : 0; } /* disassemble_info.memory_error_func for gdbscm_print_insn_from_port. @@ -133,7 +132,7 @@ static void gdbscm_disasm_memory_error (int status, bfd_vma memaddr, struct disassemble_info *info) { - memory_error (status, memaddr); + memory_error (TARGET_XFER_E_IO, memaddr); } /* disassemble_info.print_address_func for gdbscm_print_insn_from_port.