On Wed, 2009-06-10 at 09:19 +0200, Øyvind Harboe wrote: > Committed. > > Does OMAP/BeagleBoard need this? > > This "pathmove" command is ready for testing & feedback. > I've done some quick smoketests and it reveals some interesting > points in terms of where error checking should go... Discussed > yesterday.
Cool. Except that -- for all its error checking -- it does not catch all of the possible errors. Specifically, jtag_add_statemove and jtag_add_pathmove both can set jtag_error (without returning an error directly). Personally, I think jtag_error should be removed, and all routines pass back an error code. If those values needs to be "carried forward" to be reported in the right place, then they should be stored in whatever structure must be carried forward. As it is, the jtag_error code is _never_ checked by callers, while return codes are checked religiously. Today, removing it would have no effect other than to simplify the code. Cheers, Zach _______________________________________________ Openocd-development mailing list Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
