Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] gdb: Add new remote packet to check if address is tagged

[Luis Machado <luis.machado@arm.com>]

On 3/30/24 03:08, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> 
> Just one more suggestion that occurred to me later:
> 
> Gustavo Romero <gustavo.romero@linaro.org> writes:
> 
>> For supporting the new packet, a new target hook is introduced,
>> check_memtag_addr, which is used instead of the gdbarch_tagged_address_p
>> gdbarch hook in the upper layers (printcmd.c).
> 
> "check_memtag_addr" is a bit vague: what does it check? This confused me
> a bit when I was reading the code with these patches
> applied. Alternatives I can think of are "is_addr_tagged", or
> "tagged_address_p".

That last bit seems more in line with the gdb terminology. A target took "tagged_address_p" or "target_is_address_tagged" should be a bit more clear.

Plus we have precedent in the target hooks is_async_p, can_async_p, always_non_stop_p etc.

> 
> I'm not too fond of the "_p" suffix, but it has the advantage of being
> consistent with the existing gdbarch hook so it may be preferable in
> this case.
> 
> Ah, one other thing that just occurred to me: I think this warrants an
> entry in gdb/NEWS.
> 
> --
> Thiago