Re: [PATCH v7.1] Support software single step on ARM in GDBServer.

[Antoine Tremblay <antoine.tremblay@ericsson.com>]

On 12/11/2015 10:38 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
> Antoine Tremblay <antoine.tremblay@ericsson.com> writes:
>
>>
>> I'm not sure a macro is a good thing, it often makes the code harder
>> to parse for ides/emacs etc...
>
> Why macro is bad?
>

Well in my view, I write a macro when there's no other way to write what 
I want to write or the macro is generic enough to be used freely in many 
places like MAKE_THUMB_ADDR.

In this case there is a way to avoid a macro, I can add a local variable 
with shorter name, or maybe I could just rename the original operation 
with :

self->ops->read_mem_uint
vs.
ARM_READ_UINT

It's still 12 more but it avoids the macro and should be short enough.

How about that?

>>
>> And I don't think shortening the lines is a good justification in
>> general for a macro.
>
> It is!  Supposing we have a macro like this ...
>
> #define ARM_READ_UINT(MEMADDR, LEN, BYTE_ORDER) \
>     self->ops->read_memory_unsigned_integer ((MEMADDR), (LEN), (BYTE_ORDER))
>

I don't like that the macro assumes a very specific context and this 
context is not reflected in the name.

I find it confusing if somebody saw the macro ARM_READ_UINT he might 
think it's possible to use as a general macro in the file but it's not.

I think the best solution is to rename the ops to read_mem_uint.

>>
>> How about I use a function pointer variable like :
>>
>> ULONGEST (*read_memory_uint) (CORE_ADDR memaddr, int len, int byte_order);
>>
>> read_memory_uint = self->ops->read_memory_unsigned_integer;
>>
>> That would be already 23 shorter.
>>
>>>> +  loc += 2;
>>>> +  if (!((insn1 & 0xfff0) == 0xe850
>>>> +        || ((insn1 & 0xfff0) == 0xe8d0 && (insn2 & 0x00c0) == 0x0040)))
>>>> +    return NULL;
>>>> +
>>>> +  /* Assume that no atomic sequence is longer than "atomic_sequence_length"
>>>> +     instructions.  */
>>>> +  for (insn_count = 0; insn_count < atomic_sequence_length; ++insn_count)
>>>> +    {
>>>> +      insn1
>>>> +	= self->ops->read_memory_unsigned_integer (loc, 2,byte_order_for_code);
>>>> +      loc += 2;
>>>> +
>>>> +      if (thumb_insn_size (insn1) != 4)
>>>> +	{
>>>> +	  /* Assume that there is at most one conditional branch in the
>>>> +	     atomic sequence.  If a conditional branch is found, put a
>>>> +	     breakpoint in its destination address.  */
>>>> +	  if ((insn1 & 0xf000) == 0xd000 && bits (insn1, 8, 11) != 0x0f)
>>>> +	    {
>>>> +	      if (last_breakpoint > 0)
>>>> +		return NULL; /* More than one conditional branch found,
>>>> +			     fallback to the standard code.  */
>>>> +
>>>> +	      breaks[1] = loc + 2 + (sbits (insn1, 0, 7) << 1);
>>>> +	      last_breakpoint++;
>>>> +	    }
>>>> +
>>>> +	  /* We do not support atomic sequences that use any *other*
>>>> +	     instructions but conditional branches to change the PC.
>>>> +	     Fall back to standard code to avoid losing control of
>>>> +	     execution.  */
>>>> +	  else if (thumb_instruction_changes_pc (insn1))
>>>> +	    return NULL;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +      else
>>>> +	{
>>>> +	  insn2 = self->ops->read_memory_unsigned_integer
>>>> +	    (loc, 2, byte_order_for_code);
>>>
>>> Format looks wrong, multiple instances of this problem in the patch.
>>>
>>
>> Yes actually I was not sure about that and discussed this with Pedro
>> and he agreed this was ok. That's why I went with that.
>>
>> At some point when you have
>> if
>>    if
>>       if
>>          long_function_name (long variable,
>>
>> And that does not fit you could have
>>
>>          long_function_name (
>>         long variable, ... )
>>
>> or      long_function_name
>>         (long variable, ...)
>>
>> or ?
>>
>
> ... then, this problem doesn't exist at all.  Isn't it better below?
>
>     insn2 = ARM_READ_UINT (loc, 2, byte_order_for_code);
>