Skip to content

The last field of a register was not printed #908

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
Tim Newsome (timsifive) merged 1 commit into from
Oct 25, 2023
Merged

The last field of a register was not printed #908

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
10 changes: 6 additions & 4 deletions debug_reg_printer.c
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -61,11 +61,13 @@ static uint64_t riscv_debug_reg_field_value(riscv_debug_reg_field_info_t field,
}

static unsigned int riscv_debug_reg_fields_to_s(char *buf, unsigned int offset,
riscv_debug_reg_field_list_t list, riscv_debug_reg_ctx_t context, uint64_t value)
struct riscv_debug_reg_field_list_t (*get_next)(riscv_debug_reg_ctx_t contex),
riscv_debug_reg_ctx_t context, uint64_t value)
Comment on lines +64 to +65

@timsifive Tim Newsome (timsifive) Oct 23, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why do you need to pass a function get_next instead of the list?

Also, I'm surprised that there are no callers to this function that needed to be updated.

@en-sc Evgeniy Naydanov (en-sc) Oct 24, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why do you need to pass a function get_next instead of the list?

IMHO it makes the loop more concise. If one were to transition to passing a list node, the loop would be required to be a do ... while () since there would always be at least one node. I find for loops easier to read. Don't you agree?

Also, I'm surprised that there are no callers to this function that needed to be updated.

This is a static function, only called from riscv_debug_reg_to_s(). The appropriate adjustment (transition from passing a list node to passing a function pointer which generates such node) is made on line 90.

@timsifive Tim Newsome (timsifive) Oct 24, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I missed the github info showing me that line 90 was a different function. Thanks for explaining. This is fine.

{
unsigned int curr = offset;
curr += get_len_or_sprintf(buf, curr, " { ");
for (; list.get_next; list = list.get_next(context)) {
for (struct riscv_debug_reg_field_list_t list; get_next; get_next = list.get_next) {
list = get_next(context);
Comment on lines +69 to +70

@timsifive Tim Newsome (timsifive) Oct 23, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see how the old code would omit the last field, because when list.get_next is NULL you still need to print out one more field.

curr += riscv_debug_reg_field_to_s(buf, curr, list.field, context,
riscv_debug_reg_field_value(list.field, value));
curr += get_len_or_sprintf(buf, curr, ", ");
Expand All @@ -85,8 +87,8 @@ unsigned int riscv_debug_reg_to_s(char *buf, enum riscv_debug_reg_ordinal reg_or
length += print_number(buf, length, value);

if (reg.get_fields_head)
length += riscv_debug_reg_fields_to_s(buf, length, reg.get_fields_head(context),
context, value);
length += riscv_debug_reg_fields_to_s(buf, length,
reg.get_fields_head, context, value);

if (buf)
buf[length] = '\0';
Expand Down