================
@@ -3064,22 +3064,41 @@ static int gdb_errno_to_system(int err) {
static uint64_t ParseHostIOPacketResponse(StringExtractorGDBRemote &response,
uint64_t fail_result, Status &error)
{
+ // The packet is expected to have the following format:
+ // 'F<retcode>,<errno>'
+
response.SetFilePos(0);
if (response.GetChar() != 'F')
return fail_result;
+
int32_t result = response.GetS32(-2, 16);
if (result == -2)
return fail_result;
- if (response.GetChar() == ',') {
- int result_errno = gdb_errno_to_system(response.GetS32(-1, 16));
- if (result_errno != -1)
- error = Status(result_errno, eErrorTypePOSIX);
- else
- error = Status(-1, eErrorTypeGeneric);
- } else
+
+ if (response.GetChar() != ',') {
error.Clear();
+ return result;
+ }
+
+ // Response packet should contain a error code at the end. This code
+ // corresponds either to the gdb IOFile error code, or to the posix errno.
----------------
jasonmolenda wrote:
One background info: `lldb/docs/lldb-platform-packets.txt` was written by me as
I was reading the lldb/debugserver/lldb-server implementations of these
packets, and trying to cross-reference with the official gdb remote serial
protocol documentation. Any disagreement between lldb-platform-packets.txt and
the official docs should be assumed to be a mistake on my part, probably
reflecting how lldb was currently handling things. As you say, if we wanted to
relay a new error type, we'd need to get gdb to add that to the "errno" table
in their docs. Otherwise the only safe error type we can use is EUNKNOWN.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/106950
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
