This is the mail archive of the
systemtap@sourceware.org
mailing list for the systemtap project.
[Bug tapsets/2861] user_string fault handling
- From: "hunt at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: systemtap at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: 28 Jun 2006 21:59:48 -0000
- Subject: [Bug tapsets/2861] user_string fault handling
- References: <20060628164947.2861.hunt@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org
------- Additional Comments From hunt at redhat dot com 2006-06-28 21:59 -------
Subject: Re: user_string fault handling
On Wed, 2006-06-28 at 18:56 +0000, fche at redhat dot com wrote:
> ------- Additional Comments From fche at redhat dot com 2006-06-28 18:56 -------
> For the short term, I would like to see a separate user_string() variant that
> silently tolerates errors. This variant could return a fixed string in this
> case, or (even better) the string given by an additional parameter:
>
> user_string (addr) ==> noisily fails as presently
> user_string2 (addr,msg) ==> quietly returns msg on access error
>
> The syscalls tapset would presumably switch to the second form.
Is there really a need for a caller-specified error message that would
justify the overhead of the extra strcpy?
I'd like to avoid changing all the current code. How about
user_string(addr) ==> returns "<unknown>" on error
user_string(addr, 0) ==> same as above but prints warning
user_string(addr, 1) ==> prints error message and sets lasterr
> One might modify the translator to permit overloading by function arity, thus
> not requiring such awesome creativity with function naming.
A good idea independent regardless of how we solve this problem. Is
there a PR for it?
--
http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2861
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.