[Bug tapsets/2861] user_string fault handling

["hunt at redhat dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>]

------- Additional Comments From hunt at redhat dot com  2006-06-30 19:13 -------
Subject: Re:  user_string fault handling

On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 01:08 +0000, fche at redhat dot com wrote:

> 
> > user_string(addr, 0) ==> same as above but prints warning
> 
> The ", 0" setting is not helpful (nor is the "0" too informative).  We
> don't print run-time warnings at the present, and for good reason: they
> are only noise.

Unless, of course, you are interested in that "noise".  As a developer I
often want to see it.

> > user_string(addr, 1) ==> prints error message and sets lasterr
> 
> I don't find the ", 1" is too informative.

How is it less informative than user_string2() as you proposed?  I was
thinking it would be better to have parameters that modify the functions
behavior than lots of functions that do almost the same thing.

OK, here is what I am going to do for now. 

user_string(addr:long) - returns "<unknown>" on error, otherwise no
warnings, errors, etc. This is simplest and cleanest and will satisfy
99.99% of uses. 

user_string2(addr:long, err_msg:string) - Those who want to check for
errors and are afraid that files named "<unknown>" might confuse their
script can use this and give it something less likely to be a valid
filename or data.  This could be renamed to user_string() too if/when we
change the translator.

user_string_warn(addr:long) - For debugging/developers. If copies are
failing often, maybe we want some more details. Not likely to be used
much, but I sometimes use something like it.





-- 


http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2861

------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.