From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-95343-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 17594 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2012 16:34:45 -0000
Received: (qmail 17009 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Oct 2012 16:34:43 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_NIX_SPAM,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il (HELO mtaout21.012.net.il) (80.179.55.169)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:34:34 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MC500L00F6N6C00@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:34:32 +0200 (IST)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MC500KLIFDKW990@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 18:34:32 +0200 (IST)
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:34:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] enhancement of mi_cmd_data_write_memory_bytes for filling memory regions (was [PATCH] new MI command for pattern filling of memory regions)
In-reply-to: <76FE3225DF13124EA2D05B290B624C95E66C43ADB1@SAFEX1MAIL1.st.com>
To: Giuseppe MONTALTO <giuseppe.montalto@st.com>
Cc: palves@redhat.com, tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Hafiz_Abid@mentor.com
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <831ugu1kvm.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <76FE3225DF13124EA2D05B290B624C95E65F2D466E@SAFEX1MAIL1.st.com> <87sjf9rzr0.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <76FE3225DF13124EA2D05B290B624C95E65FECE356@SAFEX1MAIL1.st.com> <871umsqgu8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <76FE3225DF13124EA2D05B290B624C95E65FECE48F@SAFEX1MAIL1.st.com> <87397624b9.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <76FE3225DF13124EA2D05B290B624C95E662A6921F@SAFEX1MAIL1.st.com> <EB3B29AD43CA924DA27099BC851923762992F7@EU-MBX-03.mgc.mentorg.com> <76FE3225DF13124EA2D05B290B624C95E6632A4256@SAFEX1MAIL1.st.com> <878vcc1s9f.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <76FE3225DF13124EA2D05B290B624C95E66B003EA8@SAFEX1MAIL1.st.com> <87wqzgwm4k.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <76FE3225DF13124EA2D05B290B624C95E66B004AC6@SAFEX1MAIL1.st.com> <50802300.6040304@redhat.com> <76FE3225DF13124EA2D05B290B624C95E66B370299@SAFEX1MAIL1.st.com> <83pq4f1yda.fsf@gnu.org> <76FE3225DF13124EA2D05B290B624C95E66C43ADB1@SAFEX1MAIL1.st.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-10/txt/msg00351.txt.bz2

> From: Giuseppe MONTALTO <giuseppe.montalto@st.com>
> Cc: "palves@redhat.com" <palves@redhat.com>,
> 	"tromey@redhat.com" <tromey@redhat.com>,
> 	"gdb-patches@sourceware.org" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>,
> 	"Hafiz_Abid@mentor.com" <Hafiz_Abid@mentor.com>
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:11:50 +0200
> 
> Incidentally, the attached patch contains the sscanf() version of the loop mentioned here below:
> 
>   for (i = 0; i < len; ++i)
>     {
>       int x;
>       if (sscanf (cdata + i * 2, "%02x", &x) != 1)
>         error (_("Invalid argument"));
>       databuf[i] = (gdb_byte) x;
>     }
> 
> While, on the other hand, using strtoul() instead of sscanf() will lead to something 
> like this, or so I guess:
> 
>   for (i = 0; i < len; ++i)
>       databuf[i] = strtoul (cdata + i * 2, NULL, 16);
> 
> The former still being my preferred one, I think it all comes down to personal taste, doesn't it?

Not necessarily.  If you pass a non-NULL 2nd argument to strtoul, you
can check for errors with better accuracy.