Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 8/8] target: Replace fprintf(stderr, "*\n" with error_report()

[Alistair Francis]

On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Thomas Huth <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 26.09.2017 02:09, Alistair Francis wrote:
>> Replace a large number of the fprintf(stderr, "*\n" calls with
>> error_report(). The functions were renamed with these commands and then
>> compiler issues where manually fixed.
> [...]
>> @@ -9281,18 +9281,19 @@ static void init_ppc_proc(PowerPCCPU *cpu)
>>          case POWERPC_FLAG_PMM:
>>              break;
>>          default:
>> -            fprintf(stderr, "PowerPC MSR definition inconsistency\n"
>> -                    "Should define POWERPC_FLAG_PX or POWERPC_FLAG_PMM\n");
>> +            error_report("PowerPC MSR definition inconsistency");
>> +            error_printf("Should define POWERPC_FLAG_PX or 
>> POWERPC_FLAG_PMM");
>>              exit(1);
>>          }
>>      } else if (env->flags & (POWERPC_FLAG_PX | POWERPC_FLAG_PMM)) {
>> -        fprintf(stderr, "PowerPC MSR definition inconsistency\n"
>> -                "Should not define POWERPC_FLAG_PX nor POWERPC_FLAG_PMM\n");
>> +        error_report("PowerPC MSR definition inconsistency");
>> +        error_printf("Should not define POWERPC_FLAG_PX nor 
>> POWERPC_FLAG_PMM");
>>          exit(1);
>>      }
>>      if ((env->flags & (POWERPC_FLAG_RTC_CLK | POWERPC_FLAG_BUS_CLK)) == 0) {
>> -        fprintf(stderr, "PowerPC flags inconsistency\n"
>> -                "Should define the time-base and decrementer clock 
>> source\n");
>> +        error_report("PowerPC MSR definition inconsistency");
>> +        error_printf("Should define the time-base and decrementer clock"
>> +                     " source");
>>          exit(1);
>>      }
>
> Replacing fprintf with error_report+error_printf is kind of very ugly.
> While error_report adds newline to the output, error_printf does not (as
> far as I can see) ... did you check how such a message looks like when
> it is generated during runtime?
> Also, the strings belong together, so printing them with two function
> calls sound wrong to me... maybe they should be joined without newline
> in the middle instead?

Ok, that works for me, I'll do that.

Thanks,
Alistair

>
>  Thomas