diff options
| author | Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> | 2013-03-22 20:21:48 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> | 2013-03-22 20:21:48 +0000 |
| commit | 2ce09ced3c676f1ed39a612fdeed4ecfc4623881 (patch) | |
| tree | 1c0ce711ccf43eb0f9582d8976f8131e2881097d /gdb/cli/cli-setshow.c | |
| parent | 78a095c39e77cb462996a5d7c0438b768b09c7f0 (diff) | |
| download | gdb-2ce09ced3c676f1ed39a612fdeed4ecfc4623881.zip gdb-2ce09ced3c676f1ed39a612fdeed4ecfc4623881.tar.gz gdb-2ce09ced3c676f1ed39a612fdeed4ecfc4623881.tar.bz2 | |
Subject: Fix range validation of integer commands with "unlimited".
The range validation added by
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-03/msg00767.html
Changes things to allow setting the command to INT_MAX or UINT_MAX
directly, with signed and unsigned commands respectively. However,
that went a little bit too far, as in the cases of var_integer and
var_uinteger, those values are actually implementation detail. It's
better to not expose them in the interface, and have users assume
those values mean "unlimited" too, so to be safer to expand the range
of the commands in the future if we want to. Yes, it's pedantic, and
it's not likely users actually will do this, but MI frontends and
Python scripts might.
gdb/
2013-03-22 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Yao Qi <yao@codesourcery.com>
Mark Kettenis <kettenis@gnu.org>
* cli/cli-setshow.c (do_set_command) <var_uinteger>:
Don't let the user set the value to UINT_MAX directly.
<var_integer>: Don't let the user set the value to INT_MAX
directly.
Diffstat (limited to 'gdb/cli/cli-setshow.c')
| -rw-r--r-- | gdb/cli/cli-setshow.c | 13 |
1 files changed, 11 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/gdb/cli/cli-setshow.c b/gdb/cli/cli-setshow.c index 95ebbe7..81b90e7 100644 --- a/gdb/cli/cli-setshow.c +++ b/gdb/cli/cli-setshow.c @@ -278,7 +278,11 @@ do_set_command (char *arg, int from_tty, struct cmd_list_element *c) if (c->var_type == var_uinteger && val == 0) val = UINT_MAX; - else if (val > UINT_MAX) + /* For var_uinteger, don't let the user set the value to + UINT_MAX directly, as that exposes an implementation detail + to the user interface. */ + else if ((c->var_type == var_uinteger && val >= UINT_MAX) + || (c->var_type == var_zuinteger && val > UINT_MAX)) error (_("integer %s out of range"), plongest (val)); if (*(unsigned int *) c->var != val) @@ -300,7 +304,12 @@ do_set_command (char *arg, int from_tty, struct cmd_list_element *c) if (val == 0 && c->var_type == var_integer) val = INT_MAX; - else if (val > INT_MAX || val < INT_MIN) + /* For var_integer, don't let the user set the value to + INT_MAX directly, as that exposes an implementation detail + to the user interface. */ + else if ((c->var_type == var_integer && val >= INT_MAX) + || (c->var_type == var_zinteger && val > INT_MAX) + || val < INT_MIN) error (_("integer %s out of range"), plongest (val)); if (*(int *) c->var != val) |