This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Add fseek to ui-file

From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
To: Hui Zhu <teawater at gmail dot com>
Cc: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches ml <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, Hui Zhu <hui_zhu at mentor dot com>
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:54:31 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add fseek to ui-file
References: <CANFwon0Nv=Dk7-1kmxwjwv9zd-qoWUL18mpqH9vazRzBnkd10g@mail.gmail.com> <87txryx36w.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <CANFwon31+VCzVWBvDLQedK0EGatd6XrRxaH1LbnHUtEKA91Ciw@mail.gmail.com> <50C1BD45.9080709@redhat.com> <CANFwon3_PB-9n9PTe-d2qTZ1Tf5GQkJnj9BWz+nMksHPGm0eZQ@mail.gmail.com>

>>>>> "Hui" == Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com> writes:

Pedro> I think that if we want to support error handling, then this should
Pedro> return the fseek result to the caller instead of throwing an exception.
Pedro> See e.g., the comment in stdio_file_write.

I wonder whether that comment is correct.

Hui> What about I change error to warning?
Hui> Then it don't need some handle and something.  And if really got some
Hui> issue with this syscall, user can find issue with this warning?

I think that would be a worse solution.
It would mean the writing would continue even after failing.
Better to do what Pedro asks.

Tom

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] Add fseek to ui-file
  - From: Pedro Alves

References:
- [PATCH] Add fseek to ui-file
  - From: Hui Zhu
- Re: [PATCH] Add fseek to ui-file
  - From: Tom Tromey
- Re: [PATCH] Add fseek to ui-file
  - From: Hui Zhu
- Re: [PATCH] Add fseek to ui-file
  - From: Pedro Alves
- Re: [PATCH] Add fseek to ui-file
  - From: Hui Zhu

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]