Re: [PATCH] Add support for bound table in the Intel MPX context.

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Walfred Tedeschi <walfred.tedeschi@intel.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Walfred Tedeschi <walfred.tedeschi@intel.com>
> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:29:08 +0200
> 
> In order to investigate the contents of the MPX boundary table two new commands
> are added to GDB.  "mpx-info-bounds" and "mpx-set-bounds" are used to display
> and set values on the MPX bound table.

Thanks.

> 	* NEWS: List new commands for MPX support.

I don't see this part in the changeset you've sent.

> doc:
> 	* gdb.texinfo: Add documentation about "mpx-info-bounds"
> 	and "mpx-set-bounds"

Please state the name of the node in which you make the changes (as if
it were a function).

> --- a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
> +++ b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
> @@ -21482,6 +21482,16 @@ be returned in a register.
>  @kindex show struct-convention
>  Show the current setting of the convention to return @code{struct}s
>  from functions.
> +
> +@item mpx-info-bound @var{pointer storage}

Shouldn't this go into the next subsection, which describes features
specific to the MPX support?

> +@kindex mpx-info-bound
> +Displays the bounds of a pointer given its storage.

What is a "pointer's storage"?  We should explain that here, otherwise
this text is entirely unclear.  I also think that we should say a bit
more about the bounds, so that readers will understand what this
feature is about and how to use it to their advantage.

> +@item mpx-set-bound @var{storage} @var{lbound} @var{ubound}
> +@kindex mpx-set-bound
> +Set the bounds of a pointer in the map given its storage. This command takes
                                                           ^^
Two spaces between sentences, please.

> +three parameters @var{storage} is the pointers storage and @var{lbound} and

Please add a colon ":" after "parameters", and a comma "," between
"storage" and "and".

> +@var{ubound} are lower and upper bounds new values respectivelly.

"are the new values for the lower and the upper bound, respectively"

(Only 1 'l' in "respectively".)

> +static void
> +i386_mpx_set_bounds (char *args, int from_tty)
> +{
> +  CORE_ADDR bd_base = 0;
> +  CORE_ADDR addr, lower, upper;
> +  CORE_ADDR bt_entry_addr = 0;
> +  CORE_ADDR bt_entry[4];
> +  int ret;
> +  char *addr_str, *lower_str, *upper_str, *tmp;
> +
> +  if (!i386_mpx_enabled ())
> +    error ("MPX not supported on this target.");
> +
> +  if (!args)
> +    error ("Address of pointer variable expected.");
> +
> +  addr_str = strtok (args, " ");
> +  if (!addr_str)
> +    error ("Missing address of the pointer in the command.");
> +
> +  lower_str = strtok (NULL, " ");
> +  if (!lower_str)
> +    error ("Missing lower bound in the command.");
> +
> +  upper_str = strtok (NULL, " ");
> +  if (!upper_str)
> +    error ("Missing upper bound in the command.");
> +
> +  addr = parse_and_eval_address (addr_str);
> +  lower = parse_and_eval_address (lower_str);
> +  upper = parse_and_eval_address (upper_str);
> +
> +  bd_base = i386_mpx_bd_base ();
> +  bt_entry_addr = i386_mpx_get_bt_entry (addr, bd_base);
> +
> +  ret = target_read_memory (bt_entry_addr, (gdb_byte *) bt_entry,
> +			    sizeof (bt_entry));
> +  if (ret)
> +    error ("Cannot read bounds table entry at 0x%lx", (long) bt_entry_addr);
> +
> +  bt_entry[0] = (uint64_t) lower;
> +  bt_entry[1] = ~(uint64_t) upper;
> +
> +  ret = target_write_memory (bt_entry_addr, (gdb_byte *) bt_entry,
> +			     sizeof (bt_entry));
> +
> +  if (ret)
> +    error ("Cannot write bounds table entry at 0x%lx", (long) bt_entry_addr);
> +  else
> +    i386_mpx_print_bounds (bt_entry);
> +}

Why aren't error messages in this function inside _() ?