Hi Rolf,
please try to rewrite your patch using log_try/catch/rethrow that
was just committed.
The correct implementation for handling a loop that tries something is
just like C++:
while (!lasttime)
{
log_try();
// attempt something here
lasttime = xxx;
if (lasttime)
log_r
I've looked at this some more and I'm afraid we're going to have to
implement the try+catch+rethrow mechanism. Not hard, I've got
it mostly typed up.
The problem is with e.g. trying one big codepath and then invoking another
in the fallback case.
--
Øyvind Harboe
Embedded software and hardwar
Have a bit of faith & patience here.
What I just suggested to Rolf was an approach where we
net will *delete* quite a bit of code.
Rolf posted a patch to remove something annoying. We're
all agreed the superfluous warnings are annoying. That patch
made one thing better and another thing worse. Th
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Thank you for a *much* better analysis of the problem.
>
> (I checked a few sites and you missed a case where cfi.c is broken
> if you remove the warning, i.e. no error/warning is logged if you
> run out of working area, but otherwise a very productive post)
>
>
>> I'm sti
Thank you for a *much* better analysis of the problem.
(I checked a few sites and you missed a case where cfi.c is broken
if you remove the warning, i.e. no error/warning is logged if you
run out of working area, but otherwise a very productive post)
> I'm still convinced that the warning in targ
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Magnus Lundin wrote:
> Øyvind Harboe wrote:
>>
>> Use the source Luke :-)
>>
>>
>
> I most certainly do.
>
> But you vere saying that this particular patch breaks the error reporting
> in other places. And in my linited knowlege of the source, this is not the
> cas
Øyvind Harboe wrote:
> Use the source Luke :-)
>
>
I most certainly do.
But you vere saying that this particular patch breaks the error reporting
in other places. And in my linited knowlege of the source, this is not
the case.
It is like having malloc writing error messages to the console. An
Use the source Luke :-)
--
Øyvind Harboe
Embedded software and hardware consulting services
http://www.zylin.com
___
Openocd-development mailing list
Openocd-development@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/openocd-development
>> The proposed patch does not try to solve the general problem of
>> errorhandling in OpenOCD. It simply wants to change the debug level at
>> which this exception is reported to the user.
>>
>> Whats the problem ??
>
> The attached patch *breaks* error reporting in other places.
>
>
> --
> Ãyvin
> The proposed patch does not try to solve the general problem of
> errorhandling in OpenOCD. It simply wants to change the debug level at
> which this exception is reported to the user.
>
> Whats the problem ??
The attached patch *breaks* error reporting in other places.
--
Øyvind Harboe
Embed
>> I think this is OK, it does not change the return value, it is still
>> reported as an error/exception condition, not ERROR_OK. So for the
>> codebase nothing is changed. In the calling functions we do fall back to
>> smaller buffers or alternative implementations. So the error warning
>> should
> I think this is OK, it does not change the return value, it is still
> reported as an error/exception condition, not ERROR_OK. So for the
> codebase nothing is changed. In the calling functions we do fall back to
> smaller buffers or alternative implementations. So the error warning
> should be g
> Hi,
>
> This turns a warning into a debug message. It is printed if there is not
> as much working area as requested. Many callers try iteratively until a
> working area of suitable size is found. The current warnings are
> irritating.
>
> It should be up to the caller to decide if this is worth
This patch needs work.
OpenOCD lacks the exception concept of a "try-catch". There
are other cases where we *do* want error messages.
--
Øyvind Harboe
Embedded software and hardware consulting services
http://www.zylin.com
___
Openocd-development mai
Hi,
This turns a warning into a debug message. It is printed if there is not as
much working area as requested. Many callers try iteratively until a working
area of suitable size is found. The current warnings are irritating.
It should be up to the caller to decide if this is worth a warning. M
15 matches
Mail list logo
