[PATCH 0/2] fix ARI warnings for RISC-V port and fallout

[PATCH 0/2] fix ARI warnings for RISC-V port and fallout

[Jim Wilson]

The first patch fixes the RISC-V ARI warnings reported in July.  The
second patch fixes problems with the print-utils.h function comments I
noticed because I had to figure out what they did to write the first
patch.

This was tested with a riscv64-linux build and check, with no
regressions.  I also tested gdb by hand to verify that the debugging
comment was still correct after the change as there is no testcase for
that.

Jim

[PATCH 1/2] RISC-V: Fix two ARI warnings.

[Jim Wilson]

> gdb/riscv-tdep.c:1657: code: %ll: Do not use printf(%ll), instead use printf(%s,phex()) to dump a 'long long' value
gdb/riscv-tdep.c:1657:                  "Writing %lld-byte nop instruction to %s: %s\n",
> gdb/riscv-tdep.c:1658: code: long long: Do not use 'long long', instead use LONGEST
gdb/riscv-tdep.c:1658:                  ((unsigned long long) sizeof (nop_insn)),

fprintf_unfiltered doesn't support z (or j for that matter), and fixing that
is a larger patch than I'd like to write, so this does basically what the
ARI warnings recommends.  We don't need the cast as there is a prototype for
plongest.

	* riscv-tdep.c (riscv_push_dummy_code): Change %lld to %s and use
	plongest instead of unsigned long long cast.
---
 gdb/riscv-tdep.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/riscv-tdep.c b/gdb/riscv-tdep.c
index e4a66f1429..003b230fcf 100644
--- a/gdb/riscv-tdep.c
+++ b/gdb/riscv-tdep.c
@@ -1654,8 +1654,8 @@ riscv_push_dummy_code (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, CORE_ADDR sp,
 
   if (riscv_debug_breakpoints || riscv_debug_infcall)
     fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog,
-			"Writing %lld-byte nop instruction to %s: %s\n",
-			((unsigned long long) sizeof (nop_insn)),
+			"Writing %s-byte nop instruction to %s: %s\n",
+			plongest (sizeof (nop_insn)),
 			paddress (gdbarch, *bp_addr),
 			(status == 0 ? "success" : "failed"));
 
-- 
2.17.1

[PATCH 2/2] Improve comments in print-utils.h.

[Jim Wilson]

Since I had to look at these function comments to fix the RISC-V ARI warnings,
I noticed that they make no sense.  The pulongest and plongest comments are
swapped.  phex is missing a comment.  And phex_nz doesn't mention how it is
different from phex.

	* gdbsupport/print-utils.h (pulongest): Fix comment.
	(plongest): Likewise.
	(phex): Add missing comment, mention leading zeros.
	(phex_nz): Add mention of no leading zeros to comment.
---
 gdb/gdbsupport/print-utils.h | 11 +++++++----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/gdbsupport/print-utils.h b/gdb/gdbsupport/print-utils.h
index 815b14cbed..d52bcf8f61 100644
--- a/gdb/gdbsupport/print-utils.h
+++ b/gdb/gdbsupport/print-utils.h
@@ -24,20 +24,23 @@
    cell.  */
 #define PRINT_CELL_SIZE 50
 
-/* %d for LONGEST.  The result is stored in a circular static buffer,
+/* %u for ULONGEST.  The result is stored in a circular static buffer,
    NUMCELLS deep.  */
 
 extern char *pulongest (ULONGEST u);
 
-/* %u for ULONGEST.  The result is stored in a circular static buffer,
+/* %d for LONGEST.  The result is stored in a circular static buffer,
    NUMCELLS deep.  */
 
 extern char *plongest (LONGEST l);
 
+/* Convert a ULONGEST into a HEX string, like %lx, with leading zeros.
+   The result is stored in a circular static buffer, NUMCELLS deep.  */
+
 extern char *phex (ULONGEST l, int sizeof_l);
 
-/* Convert a ULONGEST into a HEX string, like %lx.  The result is
-   stored in a circular static buffer, NUMCELLS deep.  */
+/* Convert a ULONGEST into a HEX string, like %lx, without leading zeros.
+   The result is  stored in a circular static buffer, NUMCELLS deep.  */
 
 extern char *phex_nz (ULONGEST l, int sizeof_l);
 
-- 
2.17.1

Re: [PATCH 0/2] fix ARI warnings for RISC-V port and fallout

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Wilson <jimw@sifive.com> writes:

Jim> The first patch fixes the RISC-V ARI warnings reported in July.  The
Jim> second patch fixes problems with the print-utils.h function comments I
Jim> noticed because I had to figure out what they did to write the first
Jim> patch.

Jim> This was tested with a riscv64-linux build and check, with no
Jim> regressions.  I also tested gdb by hand to verify that the debugging
Jim> comment was still correct after the change as there is no testcase for
Jim> that.

I read these and they look fine to me.  Thanks for doing this.

Tom