From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08C9B387090B for ; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 14:40:40 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 08C9B387090B Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D2331E111; Sat, 13 Jun 2020 10:40:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Unify string-reading APIs To: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20200612215356.22145-1-tromey@adacore.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 10:40:38 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200612215356.22145-1-tromey@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, SPF_HELO_PASS, 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2020 14:40:41 -0000 On 2020-06-12 5:53 p.m., Tom Tromey wrote: > An old comment notes that gdb has several different ways to read a > string from the target. This series tries to simplify this situation. > > read_memory_string is removed entirely. Perhaps this is the better > name, in the end; but I didn't want to move read_string into > corelow.c. Maybe we need a new file for the memory-reading functions > that are there? (Also I wonder if any of the remaining ones are > redundant.) > > target_read_string is first rewritten in terms of read_string. A > subsequent patch changes its API to be simpler. > > Perhaps further simplification could be done as well. I'm open to > suggestions. > > Regression tested on x86-64 Fedora 30. I also built it using a mingw > cross, to make sure windows-nat.c still builds. > > Tom Apart from the few stylistic comments I've made, it LGTM. Thanks! Simon