Re: [PATCH] arm reversible : <phase_2_complete>

[oza Pawandeep <oza dot pawandeep at gmail dot com>]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the comments. I am confused over formatting and I have been
trying to fix all the time but it always falls apart.
what I have been doing is:

change the code in windows,
and then take it to linux.
make sure it compiles.
then edit it in xemacs editor.
make the formatting right.
then use diff  -urN command to get diff.
open the diff file in xemacs (here also again I see some formatting problems)
and then from linux I open google and paste everything.
but when I check the sent mail in yahoo, some formatting seem to be lost.

I have no idea what is the best way to maintain formatting right from
the editing of file to the diff of files to the mails.

Regards,
Oza.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "oza" == oza Pawandeep <oza.pawandeep@gmail.com> writes:
>
> oza> please find the latest patch below.
>
> No ChangeLog entry.
>
> No NEWS entry.
>
> Patch got mangled by your mailer again.
>
> oza> + ? ? ? ?memcpy(&REGS[0],&RECORD_BUF[0],sizeof(uint32_t)*LENGTH); \
>
> Wrong spacing.
>
> oza> + ? ? ? ?memcpy(&MEMS->len,&RECORD_BUF[0],sizeof(struct arm_mem_r) * LENGTH); \
>
> Likewise.
>
> oza> +}arm_record_strx_t;
>
> Spacing.
>
> oza> +}record_type_t;
>
> Again.
>
> oza> +
> oza> +static int
> oza> +arm_record_strx (insn_decode_record *arm_insn_r, uint32_t *record_buf,
> oza> + ? ?uint32_t *record_buf_mem, arm_record_strx_t str_type)
>
> Indentation.
>
> oza> + ? if ((14 == arm_insn_r->opcode) || (10 == arm_insn_r->opcode))
>
> Too many parens.
>
> oza> + ?else if ((12 == arm_insn_r->opcode) || (8 == arm_insn_r->opcode))
>
> Again.
>
> oza> + ?else if ((11 == arm_insn_r->opcode) || (15 == arm_insn_r->opcode)
> oza> + ? ?|| (2 == arm_insn_r->opcode) || (6 == arm_insn_r->opcode))
>
> Again, plus indentation.
>
> oza> + ? ? ?regcache_raw_read_unsigned (reg_cache, reg_src1
> oza> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? , &u_regval[0]);
>
> Formatting -- "," is on the wrong line.
>
> I see most of these issues multiple times. ?Please go over the entire
> patch and fix them all. ?I feel like I asked this before.
>
> oza> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?/* FIX ME: How to read SPSR value? ?*/
>
> We try not to put FIXME comments into new code.
> Nobody ever fixes them.
>
> You can just write an informative comment instead: "We have no way to
> read the SPSR value". ?Assuming that is accurate.
>
> The enclosing function, arm_record_extension_space, takes care to return
> a value, but (1) the meaning of the return value is not documented in
> the function's introductory comment (this problems affects many of the
> new functions), and (2) the only caller does not check it.
>
> What happens if the user hits an instruction which is not handled?
> Right now a message is printed. ?But shouldn't it abort the operation in
> some other way? ?That is, is emitting a message really sufficient?
>
> oza> +/* Decode arm/thumb insn depending on condition cods and opcodes; and
> oza> dispatch it. ?*/
> oza> +
> oza> +static int
> oza> +decode_insn (insn_decode_record *arm_record, record_type_t record_type,
> oza> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?uint32_t insn_size)
>
> E.g., here the return value should be documented.
>
> oza> + ?static int (*const arm_handle_insn[8])
> oza> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(insn_decode_record*) =
>
> Formatting looks weird.
> A typedef for the function type would probably make this look less
> strange.
>
> oza> + ? ? ?/* if this insn has fallen into extension space then we need
> oza> not decode it anymore. ?*/
> oza> + ? ? ?if (!INSN_RECORDED(arm_record))
> oza> + ? ? ? ?{
> oza> + ? ? ? ? ?arm_handle_insn[insn_id] (arm_record);
>
> ... it seems like there should be a check of the return value here.
> I don't understand this.
>
> oza> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ?if (record_arch_list_add_mem \
>
> No need for this backslash.
>
> oza> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?((CORE_ADDR)arm_record.arm_mems[no_of_rec].addr,
> oza> + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?arm_record.arm_mems[no_of_rec].len))
>
> Really messed up formatting.
>
> oza> + ?if (arm_record.arm_regs)
> oza> + ? ?xfree (arm_record.arm_regs);
> oza> + ?if (arm_record.arm_mems)
> oza> + ? ?xfree (arm_record.arm_mems);
>
> This is fine as long as you have proved that nothing in any possible
> call path here can throw an exception. ?If anything throws an exception,
> then you are leaking memory and should instead use a cleanup.
>
> oza> + ? /* Parse swi insn args, sycall record. ?*/
> oza> + ?int (*arm_swi_record) (struct regcache *regcache);
>
> Since this is only used in your Phase 3 patch, it belongs there.
>
> Tom
>