This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] guile/: Add enum casts
- From: Simon Marchi <simon dot marchi at polymtl dot ca>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:29:05 -0400
- 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>
On 28 October 2015 at 14:54, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
> In both cases the casts looks appropriate to me. In the
> gdbscm_disasm_memory_error case, the status is marshaled through the
> opcodes disassemble interface. In the
> gdbscm_unwind_stop_reason_string case, the int comes from Guile.
>
> gdb/ChangeLog:
> 2015-10-28 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
>
> * guile/scm-disasm.c (gdbscm_disasm_memory_error): Add cast.
> * guile/scm-frame.c (gdbscm_unwind_stop_reason_string): Add cast.
> ---
> gdb/guile/scm-disasm.c | 2 +-
> gdb/guile/scm-frame.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gdb/guile/scm-disasm.c b/gdb/guile/scm-disasm.c
> index 78b38df..0cc2f84 100644
> --- a/gdb/guile/scm-disasm.c
> +++ b/gdb/guile/scm-disasm.c
> @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ static void
> gdbscm_disasm_memory_error (int status, bfd_vma memaddr,
> struct disassemble_info *info)
> {
> - memory_error (status, memaddr);
> + memory_error ((enum target_xfer_status) status, memaddr);
> }
>
> /* disassemble_info.print_address_func for gdbscm_print_insn_from_port.
> diff --git a/gdb/guile/scm-frame.c b/gdb/guile/scm-frame.c
> index 24e26e8..55e0faf 100644
> --- a/gdb/guile/scm-frame.c
> +++ b/gdb/guile/scm-frame.c
> @@ -1045,7 +1045,7 @@ gdbscm_unwind_stop_reason_string (SCM reason_scm)
> if (reason < UNWIND_FIRST || reason > UNWIND_LAST)
> scm_out_of_range (FUNC_NAME, reason_scm);
>
> - str = unwind_stop_reason_to_string (reason);
> + str = unwind_stop_reason_to_string ((enum unwind_stop_reason) reason);
> return gdbscm_scm_from_c_string (str);
> }
>
> --
> 1.9.3
>
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?