Re: [hatari-devel] Fwrite warnings

[Eero Tamminen <oak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

On 27.10.2022 10.08, Uwe Seimet wrote:
> Yes, that fixed has helped. All warnings are gone.

Thanks, I pushed slightly updated version of it.

Before next release this message can be downgraded to DEBUG log level, 
but for now I want to keep it at WARN log level to catch potential 
further issues with it.


> In general it might be a good idea to suppress consecutive duplicate
> warnings but just to display them once with a count, e.g.
>
> WARN : GEMDOS Fwrite() to 'ROOT.O' file, opened as read-only (3 times)

I have patches out on the mailing list to do that for trace output, but 
I could extend it to cover also log messages.

Because suppression logic adds some overhead and can delay output of the 
identical messages a lot, it's behind a new "--repeat-limit" Hatari 
debug option.


	- Eero

> instead of
>
> WARN : GEMDOS Fwrite() to 'ROOT.O' file, opened as read-only
> WARN : GEMDOS Fwrite() to 'ROOT.O' file, opened as read-only
> WARN : GEMDOS Fwrite() to 'ROOT.O' file, opened as read-only
>
> Best regards
>
> Uwe
>
> > Hi Uwe,
> >
> > On 27.10.2022 0.39, Eero Tamminen wrote:
> > > On 26.10.2022 15.16, Uwe Seimet wrote:
> > > > > with the latest sources I get tons of warnings when, for instance, I
> > > > > compile
> > > > > with Pure C. I have never seen these warnings before.
> > > > >
> > > > > WARN : GEMDOS Fwrite() to 'ROOT.O' file, opened as read-only
> > >
> > > This is from following commit:
> > > https://git.tuxfamily.org/hatari/hatari.git/commit/?id=799020b84d0224a4bb38f2b892a8ecdd1c11bcc1
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Is this a bug or can these warnings be switched off? There are so
> > > > > many of
> > > > > them that it's hard to see the actually relevant messages.
> > >   >
> > >   > I just noticed that I also get these warnings
> > >   > for files definitely opened for writing, i.e.
> > >   > opened with fopen(FILENAME, "w") with Pure C.
> > >
> > > Can you provide GEMDOS trace around that warning?
> >
> > Only case where I can see this happening:
> > * Fwrite() done for a FD from Fcreate(), not Fopen(), and
> > * That FD number being reused from an earlier, already Fclose()d,
> > read-only Fopen() call
> >
> >
> > Attached patch should fix that.  Does it help?
> >
> >
> > 	- Eero
>
> > diff --git a/src/gemdos.c b/src/gemdos.c
> > index 1c3e4010..5067ac54 100644
> > --- a/src/gemdos.c
> > +++ b/src/gemdos.c
> > @@ -896,6 +896,8 @@ static void restore_file_handle_info(int i, FILE_HANDLE *handle)
> >   		fclose(fp);
> >   		return;
> >   	}
> > +	/* used only for warnings, ignore those after restore */
> > +	handle->bReadOnly = false;
> >   	handle->FileHandle = fp;
> >   }
> >   
> > @@ -2021,8 +2023,11 @@ static bool GemDOS_Create(uint32_t Params)
> >   		 * - GEMDOS_FILE_ATTRIB_WRITECLOSE   (FA_ARCHIVE)
> >   		 *   (set automatically by GemDOS >= 0.15)
> >   		 */
> > +		FileHandles[Index].bReadOnly = false;
> >   		if (Mode & GEMDOS_FILE_ATTRIB_READONLY)
> >   		{
> > +			/* enable write warnings */
> > +			FileHandles[Index].bReadOnly = true;
> >   			/* after closing, file should be read-only */
> >   			if (chmod(szActualFileName, S_IRUSR|S_IRGRP|S_IROTH))
> >   			{
> > @@ -3883,8 +3888,9 @@ void GemDOS_Info(FILE *fp, uint32_t bShowOpcodes)
> >   	{
> >   		if (!FileHandles[i].bUsed)
> >   			continue;
> > -		fprintf(fp, "- %d (0x%x): %s\n", i + BASE_FILEHANDLE,
> > -			FileHandles[i].Basepage, FileHandles[i].szActualName);
> > +		fprintf(fp, "- %d (0x%x): %s (%s)\n", i + BASE_FILEHANDLE,
> > +			FileHandles[i].Basepage, FileHandles[i].szActualName,
> > +			FileHandles[i].bReadOnly ? "ro" : "rw");
> >   		used++;
> >   	}
> >   	if (!used)