From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.90_1) id 1uM2md-0004zX-Fx for mharc-qemu-rust@gnu.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2025 06:52:47 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uM2mb-0004yq-30 for qemu-rust@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2025 06:52:45 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1uM2mZ-0000ac-NR for qemu-rust@nongnu.org; Mon, 02 Jun 2025 06:52:44 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1748861562; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=aX9Z0D63j0Esz9NQqR9RJjbxzzf0ckrTzB2HkPExJvM=; b=MfJuB2TrL3Em1rB0Okd3zgJ8sUOT3WgFRhEDlMsNClFE7epjqc+Ez0rMJpGMK0WWJzJF1u WVBOWzb6ArEkTz5Q31iFh2Qo+mALdGiaoGaJV9fw4qeltT2VrC4h68nlQDYwN0oorWAeG6 XuC8bI6NbWTNvFV3H+Vm647OROm/M+w= Received: from mx-prod-mc-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-35-165-154-97.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [35.165.154.97]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-396-BCsT-WMiNEKZ4EiRrdz8gw-1; Mon, 02 Jun 2025 06:52:39 -0400 X-MC-Unique: BCsT-WMiNEKZ4EiRrdz8gw-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: BCsT-WMiNEKZ4EiRrdz8gw_1748861558 Received: from mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.111]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F1E71800873; Mon, 2 Jun 2025 10:52:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from blackfin.pond.sub.org (unknown [10.45.242.38]) by mx-prod-int-08.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 589FD180047F; Mon, 2 Jun 2025 10:52:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by blackfin.pond.sub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id E37E721E66C3; Mon, 02 Jun 2025 12:52:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Markus Armbruster To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-rust@nongnu.org, Zhao Liu Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/14] util/error: make func optional In-Reply-To: <20250530080307.2055502-6-pbonzini@redhat.com> (Paolo Bonzini's message of "Fri, 30 May 2025 10:02:57 +0200") References: <20250530080307.2055502-1-pbonzini@redhat.com> <20250530080307.2055502-6-pbonzini@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 12:52:34 +0200 Message-ID: <87v7peiff1.fsf@pond.sub.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.111 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=170.10.133.124; envelope-from=armbru@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -31 X-Spam_score: -3.2 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.071, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=-1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-rust@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: QEMU Rust-related patches and discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2025 10:52:45 -0000 Paolo Bonzini writes: > The function name is not available in Rust, so make it optional. > > Reviewed-by: Zhao Liu > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini > --- > util/error.c | 9 +++++++-- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/util/error.c b/util/error.c > index 3449ecc0b92..daea2142f30 100644 > --- a/util/error.c > +++ b/util/error.c > @@ -24,8 +24,13 @@ Error *error_warn; > static void error_handle(Error **errp, Error *err) > { > if (errp == &error_abort) { > - fprintf(stderr, "Unexpected error in %s() at %.*s:%d:\n", > - err->func, err->src_len, err->src, err->line); > + if (err->func) { > + fprintf(stderr, "Unexpected error in %s() at %.*s:%d:\n", > + err->func, err->src_len, err->src, err->line); > + } else { > + fprintf(stderr, "Unexpected error at %.*s:%d:\n", > + err->src_len, err->src, err->line); > + } > error_report("%s", error_get_pretty(err)); > if (err->hint) { > error_printf("%s", err->hint->str); This changes struct Error member @func from non-null to maybe-null. An argument could be made for a comment there. But since "can this be null" questions are *everywhere* in C, it would be a rather weak argument: competent programmers are unlikely to be misled. Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster