From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 79410 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2016 16:50:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 79400 invoked by uid 89); 26 Feb 2016 16:50:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:50:35 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.39]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1aZLb6-00077D-5f from Luis_Gustavo@mentor.com ; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:50:32 -0800 Received: from [172.30.3.146] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:50:31 -0800 Reply-To: Luis Machado Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] arm-tdep.c: Refactor displaced stepping relocation functions References: <1456415245-24005-1-git-send-email-simon.marchi@ericsson.com> <1456415245-24005-3-git-send-email-simon.marchi@ericsson.com> <56D07946.2060104@codesourcery.com> <56D07C04.9060000@ericsson.com> To: Simon Marchi , From: Luis Machado Message-ID: <56D08256.80502@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2016 16:50:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56D07C04.9060000@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00877.txt.bz2 On 02/26/2016 01:23 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: >>> diff --git a/gdb/arm-tdep.c b/gdb/arm-tdep.c >>> index 43b61c2..ef48a90 100644 >>> --- a/gdb/arm-tdep.c >>> +++ b/gdb/arm-tdep.c >>> @@ -7111,9 +7111,8 @@ thumb_copy_pop_pc_16bit (uint16_t insn1, struct arm_insn_reloc_data *data) >>> return 0; >>> } >>> >>> -static void >>> -thumb_process_displaced_16bit_insn (uint16_t insn1, >>> - struct arm_insn_reloc_data *data) >>> +static int >>> +arm_relocate_insn_thumb_16bit (uint16_t insn1, struct arm_insn_reloc_data *data) >>> { >>> unsigned short op_bit_12_15 = bits (insn1, 12, 15); >>> unsigned short op_bit_10_11 = bits (insn1, 10, 11); >>> @@ -7202,9 +7201,7 @@ thumb_process_displaced_16bit_insn (uint16_t insn1, >>> err = 1; >>> } >>> >>> - if (err) >>> - internal_error (__FILE__, __LINE__, >>> - _("thumb_process_displaced_16bit_insn: Instruction decode error")); >>> + return err; >> >> Should we keep this internal error message under a different context >> instead of exporting just an error code? Maybe the error code should >> trigger this internal error for GDB? > > I am not sure I understand your comment. Given this call tree: > > - arm_process_displaced_insn > - arm_relocate_insn_arm > ... > - arm_relocate_insn_thumb_32bit > ... > - arm_relocate_insn_thumb_16bit > ... > > my patch makes it so that the arm_relocate_insn* functions return an error code, and > arm_process_displaced_insn calls internal_error if an error is returned. Do you suggest > putting the internal_error calls in the arm_relocate_insn_* functions directly? > No. If we want them shared, i don't think we'd want them to throw internal errors. I was just pointing out the fact that we're losing the function name information from arm_relocate_insn_thumb_16bit's and thumb_process_displaced_32bit_insn's internal error messages. This information may make debugging easier. We would need to throw errors with custom messages from within arm_process_displaced_insn in order to maintain those names. For example: "thumb_process_displaced_16bit_insn: Instruction decode error" "thumb_process_displaced_32bit_insn: Instruction decode error" Instead of: "arm_process_displaced_insn: Instruction decode error" I see the regular non-thumb functions don't throw internal errors themselves though. So i'm fine if others think the more specific error message is not needed. Luis