Misleading comment in `state_machine`?

[Sean Cross]

In the documentation for incoming_data() in the state::Running state, the comment is annotated as such:

gdbstub/src/stub/state_machine.rs

Lines 274 to 302 in d22eea8

 /// Pass a byte to the GDB stub. 
 /// 
 /// NOTE: unlike the `incoming_data` method in the `state::Idle` state, 
 /// this method does not perform any state transitions, and will 
 /// return a `GdbStubStateMachineInner` in the `state::Running` state. 
 pub fn incoming_data( 
     mut self, 
     target: &mut T, 
     byte: u8, 
 ) -> Result<GdbStubStateMachine<'a, T, C>, Error<T::Error, C::Error>> { 
     let packet_buffer = match self.i.recv_packet.pump(&mut self.i.packet_buffer, byte)? { 
         Some(buf) => buf, 
         None => return Ok(self.into()), 
     }; 
  
     let packet = Packet::from_buf(target, packet_buffer).map_err(Error::PacketParse)?; 
     let state = self 
         .i 
         .inner 
         .handle_packet(target, &mut self.i.conn, packet)?; 
     Ok(match state { 
         State::Pump => self.transition(state::Running {}).into(), 
         State::Disconnect(reason) => self.transition(state::Disconnected { reason }).into(), 
         State::DeferredStopReason => self.transition(state::Running {}).into(), 
         State::CtrlCInterrupt => self 
             .transition(state::CtrlCInterrupt { from_idle: false }) 
             .into(), 
     }) 
 } 

However, contrary to the comment, it seems as though this performs state transitions as normal, and it doesn't always return a state that's state::Running.

Is this comment incorrect? Does it need to be updated?

[Daniel Prilik]

Yep, that's definitely wrong!
I believe I left that in from an earlier iteration of the code, and forgot to remove it.

Thanks for brining it to my attention. No need to send a PR or anything - I'll push up a commit fixing this shortly.

[Daniel Prilik]

closed via d69da3a