Re: [PATCH] guile/: Add enum casts

[Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>]

On 10/28/2015 07:46 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 10/28/2015 07:38 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> 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?
> 
> Like this?
> 
> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> Date: 2015-10-27 17:25:12 +0000
> 
> guile disassembly hardcode TARGET_XFER_E_IO
> 
> Instead of adding a cast at the memory_error call, as needed for C++,
> and have the reader understand the indirection, make it simple and
> hardcode the generic memory error at the memory_error call site.
> 
> gdb/ChangeLog:
> 2015-10-28  Pedro Alves  <palves@redhat.com>
> 
> 	* guile/scm-disasm.c (gdbscm_disasm_read_memory): Return -1 on
> 	error instead of TARGET_XFER_E_IO.
> 	(gdbscm_disasm_memory_error): Always pass TARGET_XFER_E_IO to
> 	memory_error.

I pushed this one in now.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves