This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] guile/: Add enum casts
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Simon Marchi <simon dot marchi at polymtl dot ca>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Doug Evans <xdje42 at gmail dot com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:38:49 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] guile/: Add enum casts
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1446058487-22472-1-git-send-email-palves at redhat dot com> <CAFXXi0mtDwZBXNF1LCe61yEgsU=AcaYz-kQSWiFe6ONpxne2=Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <563123AC dot 2080804 at redhat dot com>
On 10/28/2015 07:36 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 10/28/2015 07:29 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>
>> The status comes from gdbscm_disasm_read_memory returning TARGET_XFER_E_IO:
>>
>> return status != NULL ? TARGET_XFER_E_IO : 0;
>>
>> Does it make sense that this function returns TARGET_XFER_E_IO, and
>> not just -1 (or any other non-zero value) on error? It's an
>> all-or-nothing memory read function, unlike those of the xfer_partial
>> interface.
>>
>> I would have done a change similar to what you have done in
>> target_read_memory&co: make gdbscm_disasm_read_memory return -1 on
>> error, and change
>> memory_error (status, memaddr);
>> to
>> memory_error (TARGET_XFER_E_IO, memaddr);
>>
>> Would it make sense?
>
> I had the same thoughts when I did the target_read_memory&co patch,
> and went through all the memory_error callers. In the end I left
> it be because of the IWBN comment:
>
> /* TODO: IWBN to distinguish problems reading target memory versus problems
> with the port (e.g., EOF).
> We return TARGET_XFER_E_IO here as that's what memory_error looks for. */
> return status != NULL ? TARGET_XFER_E_IO : 0;
>
> Either way is fine with me. Doug, what would you prefer?
>
> Cast?
> Hardcode TARGET_XFER_E_IO in the memory_error call?
> Other?
Hmm, reading the comment back, I actually agree with Simon.
The comment refers to distinguishing memory errors from something
else not memory errors. In that "something else" case, sounds like
we wouldn't end up calling memory_error at all. So sounds like Simon's
suggestion would be the clearer way to go. WDYT?
Thanks,
Pedro Alves