Re: [PATCH 1/5] gdb: Clean up remote.c:remote_resume

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 02/17/2016 11:45 AM, Luis Machado wrote:
> Just nits.
> 
> On 02/17/2016 12:44 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> Just some refactoring / TLC.  Mainly split the old c/s/C/S packet
>> handling to a separate function.
>>
>> gdb/ChangeLog:
>> 2016-02-09  Pedro Alves  <palves@redhat.com>
>>
>> 	* remote.c (remote_resume_with_hc): New function, factored out
>> 	from ...
>> 	(remote_resume): ... this.  Always try vCont first.
>> 	(remote_vcont_resume): Rename to ...
>> 	(remote_resume_with_vcont): ... this.  Bail out if execution
>> 	direction is reverse.
>> ---
>>   gdb/remote.c | 113 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
>>   1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 51 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gdb/remote.c b/gdb/remote.c
>> index fa97e1e..60e2dda 100644
>> --- a/gdb/remote.c
>> +++ b/gdb/remote.c
>> @@ -5460,6 +5460,58 @@ append_pending_thread_resumptions (char *p, char *endp, ptid_t ptid)
>>     return p;
>>   }
>>
>> +/* Set the target running, using the packets that use Hc
>> +   (c/s/C/S).  */
>> +
>> +static void
>> +remote_resume_with_hc (struct target_ops *ops,
>> +		       ptid_t ptid, int step, enum gdb_signal siggnal)
>> +{
>> +  struct remote_state *rs = get_remote_state ();
>> +  struct thread_info *thread;
>> +  char *buf;
>> +
>> +  rs->last_sent_signal = siggnal;
>> +  rs->last_sent_step = step;
>> +
>> +  /* The c/s/C/S resume packets use Hc, so set the continue
>> +     thread.  */
>> +  if (ptid_equal (ptid, minus_one_ptid))
>> +    set_continue_thread (any_thread_ptid);
>> +  else
>> +    set_continue_thread (ptid);
>> +
>> +  ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS (thread)
>> +    resume_clear_thread_private_info (thread);
>> +
>> +  buf = rs->buf;
>> +  if (execution_direction == EXEC_REVERSE)
>> +    {
>> +      /* We don't pass signals to the target in reverse exec mode.  */
>> +      if (info_verbose && siggnal != GDB_SIGNAL_0)
>> +	warning (_(" - Can't pass signal %d to target in reverse: ignored."),
>> +		 siggnal);
>> +
> 
> Even though it is existing code, this reads a bit odd.

(Also, I have no idea what that unusual leading " - " is there.)

> 
> Should we update it to "... in reverse execution: ..." maybe?

Hmm, it'd still sound like a word is missing after execution,
to me.

I did 'grep reverse * | grep "\""' and found:

 reverse.c:    error (_("Already in reverse mode.  Use '%s' or 'set exec-dir forward'."),
 infcall.c:    error (_("Cannot call functions in reverse mode."));

So maybe

  "... in reverse mode: ..."
  "... in reverse execution mode: ..."

?

I'd rather leave it be in this patch though, since it's
just a refactor with no UI change intended.

>>   static int
>> -remote_vcont_resume (ptid_t ptid, int step, enum gdb_signal siggnal)
>> +remote_resume_with_vcont (ptid_t ptid, int step, enum gdb_signal siggnal)
>>   {
>>     struct remote_state *rs = get_remote_state ();
>>     char *p;
>>     char *endp;
>>
>> +  /* No reverse support (yet) for vCont.  */
>> +  if (execution_direction == EXEC_REVERSE)
>> +    return 0;
>> +
> 
> Same case as above. Also, do we need "(yet)"?

How about:

  /* There are no vCont reverse-execution actions defined.  */
  if (execution_direction == EXEC_REVERSE)
    return 0;

?

Thanks,
Pedro Alves