From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31589 invoked by alias); 5 Dec 2012 18:21:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 31581 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Dec 2012 18:21:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Dec 2012 18:21:20 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qB5ILHOs007578 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 5 Dec 2012 13:21:17 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qB5ILFVL012980 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 5 Dec 2012 13:21:16 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Hui Zhu Cc: Hui Zhu , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add CTF support to GDB [1/4] Add "-ctf" to tsave command References: <50AC3217.6040608@mentor.com> <878v9k5g46.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2012 18:21:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Hui Zhu's message of "Wed, 5 Dec 2012 09:46:47 +0800") Message-ID: <87k3sws6lg.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-12/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Hui" == Hui Zhu writes: Hui> I have 2 questions about use ui_file: Hui> 1. I can add new interface about fseek to ui_file? Sure. Hui> 2. I found that write functions of stdio_file don't check write fail. Hui> Is that right, or I miss something? Looks that way. But maybe the comment there is wrong, it is worth checking. If it is unfixable then I that is sufficient rationale for your original approach. Tom