[PATCH, obv] [AArch64] Fix gdb.base/memtag.exp failure

[PATCH, obv] [AArch64] Fix gdb.base/memtag.exp failure

[Luis Machado]

While running this test on an emulator, I noticed we're failing to match the
output message when "memory-tag check" is issued with no arguments.  That's
because I coded the message using "error" and missed a period at the end.  Other
similar messages are issued with error_no_arg.

This patch changes that call to use error_no_arg.

Tested on aarch64-linux Ubuntu 20.04/22.04.
---
 gdb/printcmd.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/gdb/printcmd.c b/gdb/printcmd.c
index f9517e6e086..d8d97493bab 100644
--- a/gdb/printcmd.c
+++ b/gdb/printcmd.c
@@ -3196,7 +3196,7 @@ memory_tag_check_command (const char *args, int from_tty)
     show_memory_tagging_unsupported ();
 
   if (args == nullptr)
-    error (_("Argument required (address or pointer)"));
+    error_no_arg (_("address or pointer"));
 
   /* Parse the expression into a value.  If the value is an address or
      pointer, then check its logical tag against the allocation tag.  */
-- 
2.25.1

Re: [PATCH, obv] [AArch64] Fix gdb.base/memtag.exp failure

[Luis Machado]

On 6/6/23 14:46, Luis Machado via Gdb-patches wrote:
> While running this test on an emulator, I noticed we're failing to match the
> output message when "memory-tag check" is issued with no arguments.  That's
> because I coded the message using "error" and missed a period at the end.  Other
> similar messages are issued with error_no_arg.
> 
> This patch changes that call to use error_no_arg.
> 
> Tested on aarch64-linux Ubuntu 20.04/22.04.
> ---
>   gdb/printcmd.c | 2 +-
>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/gdb/printcmd.c b/gdb/printcmd.c
> index f9517e6e086..d8d97493bab 100644
> --- a/gdb/printcmd.c
> +++ b/gdb/printcmd.c
> @@ -3196,7 +3196,7 @@ memory_tag_check_command (const char *args, int from_tty)
>       show_memory_tagging_unsupported ();
>   
>     if (args == nullptr)
> -    error (_("Argument required (address or pointer)"));
> +    error_no_arg (_("address or pointer"));
>   
>     /* Parse the expression into a value.  If the value is an address or
>        pointer, then check its logical tag against the allocation tag.  */

Pushed now.