This function doesn't need to care about ownership semantics, so we can
just pass it a reference to the file itself, rather than a
std::shared_ptr alias.
So, one thing that's puzzled me is why the kernel seemed to *not* use
the direct code address ranges in some cases for some service functions.
For example, in svcMapMemory, the full address space width is compared
against for validity, but for svcMapSharedMemory, it compares against
0xFFE00000, 0xFF8000000, and 0x7FF8000000 as upper bounds, and uses
either 0x200000 or 0x8000000 as the lower-bounds as the beginning of the
compared range. Coincidentally, these exact same values are also used in
svcGetInfo, and also when initializing the user address space, so this
is actually retrieving the ASLR extents, not the extents of the address
space in general.
This should help diagnose crashes easier and prevent many users thinking that a game is still running when in fact it's just an audio thread still running(this is typically not killed when svcBreak is hit since the game expects us to do this)
A fairly basic service function, which only appears to currently support
retrieving the process state. This also alters the ProcessStatus enum to
contain all of the values that a kernel process seems to be able of
reporting with regards to state.
Neither of these functions alter the ownership of the provided pointer,
so we can simply make the parameters a reference rather than a direct
shared pointer alias. This way we also disallow passing incorrect memory values like
nullptr.
We can utilize QStringList's join() function to perform all of the
appending in a single function call.
While we're at it, make the extension list a single translatable string
and add a disambiguation comment to explain to translators what %1
actually is.
Depending on whether or not USE_DISCORD_PRESENCE is defined, the "state"
parameter can be used or unused. If USE_DISCORD_PRESENCE is not defined,
the parameter will be considered unused, which can lead to compiler
warnings. So, we can explicitly mark it with [[maybe_unused]] to inform
the compiler that this is intentional.
We can just reserve the memory then perform successive insertions
instead of needing to use memcpy. This also avoids the need to zero out
the output vector's memory before performing the insertions.
We can also std::move the output std::vector into the destination so
that we don't need to make a completely new copy of the vector, getting
rid of an unnecessary allocation.
Additionally, we can use iterators to determine the beginning and end
ranges of the std::vector instances that comprise the output vector, as
the end of one range just becomes the beginning for the next successive
range, and since std::vector's iterator constructor copies data within
the range [begin, end), this is more straightforward and gets rid of the
need to have an offset variable that keeps getting incremented to
determine where to do the next std::memcpy.
Given it's only used in one spot and has a fairly generic name, we can
just specify it directly in the function call. This also the benefit of
automatically moving it.
Instead, we can make it part of the type and make named variables for
them, so they only require one definition (and if they ever change for
whatever reason, they only need to be changed in one spot).
Given the VirtualFile instance isn't stored into the class as a data
member, or written to, this can just be turned into a const reference,
as the constructor doesn't need to make a copy of it.
If the data is unconditionally being appended to the back of a
std::vector, we can just directly insert it there without the need to
insert all of the elements one-by-one with a std::back_inserter.
Given the filesystem should always be assumed to be volatile, we should
check and bail out if a seek operation isn't successful. This'll prevent
potentially writing/returning garbage data from the function in rare
cases.
This also allows removing a check to see if an offset is within the
bounds of a file before perfoming a seek operation. If a seek is
attempted beyond the end of a file, it will fail, so this essentially
combines two checks into one in one place.
Given the file is opened a few lines above and no operations are done,
other than check if the file is in a valid state, the read/write pointer
will always be at the beginning of the file.
ReinUsesLisp
Zach Hilman
Lioncash
bunnei
FernandoS27
David Marcec
Hexagon12