From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <lsix@lancelotsix.com>
Received: from lndn.lancelotsix.com (vps-42846194.vps.ovh.net
 [IPv6:2001:41d0:801:2000::2400])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A83E3886C58
 for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Mon,  7 Jun 2021 17:07:16 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 8A83E3886C58
Received: from Plymouth (unknown [IPv6:2a02:390:9086:0:7bc6:28c0:e505:21fc])
 by lndn.lancelotsix.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DAA2381895;
 Mon,  7 Jun 2021 17:07:14 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2021 18:07:10 +0100
From: Lancelot SIX <lsix@lancelotsix.com>
To: Andrew Burgess <andrew.burgess@embecosm.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] gdb/python: handle saving user registers in a frame
 unwinder
Message-ID: <20210607170710.a2dtukyyjjxwzmes@Plymouth>
References: <cover.1622321523.git.andrew.burgess@embecosm.com>
 <c8d1850c5fc83e02acf404c71ea6d28940489fec.1622321523.git.andrew.burgess@embecosm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <c8d1850c5fc83e02acf404c71ea6d28940489fec.1622321523.git.andrew.burgess@embecosm.com>
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.11
 (lndn.lancelotsix.com [0.0.0.0]); Mon, 07 Jun 2021 17:07:15 +0000 (UTC)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,
 DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,
 TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/gdb-patches>,
 <mailto:gdb-patches-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/gdb-patches>,
 <mailto:gdb-patches-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2021 17:07:18 -0000

Hi,

I just have a minor stylistic remark in the python code in the test:

> […]
> +
> +    def __call__(self, pending_frame):
> +        pc_desc = pending_frame.architecture().registers().find("pc")
> +        pc = pending_frame.read_register(pc_desc)
> +
> +        sp_desc = pending_frame.architecture().registers().find("sp")
> +        sp = pending_frame.read_register(sp_desc)
> +
> +        block = gdb.block_for_pc(int(pc))
> +        if block == None:

When looking for None, it is usually prefered to use 'is None' instead
of '== None'.  The result is the same unless there is a strange overload
of __eq__.

This pattern can also be seen in patch 3 and 4 of your series (patch 4
using both '==' and 'is' to check for None).

Lancelot.

> +            return None
> +        func = block.function
> +        if func == None:
> +            return None