From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28753 invoked by alias); 3 Jul 2007 01:24:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 28745 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jul 2007 01:24:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jul 2007 01:24:30 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2B379829C; Tue, 3 Jul 2007 01:24:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8783A9817B; Tue, 3 Jul 2007 01:24:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I5X7W-0007Kx-Bz; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:23:58 -0400 Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 01:24:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: msnyder@sonic.net Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gaius@glam.ac.uk Subject: Re: [RFC] logic change in m2-valprint.c Message-ID: <20070703012358.GC27862@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: msnyder@sonic.net, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, gaius@glam.ac.uk References: <16087.12.7.175.2.1183076995.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> <20070701154831.GE10872@caradoc.them.org> <004a01c7bbf8$16a2ccc0$677ba8c0@sonic.net> <20070701160224.GH10872@caradoc.them.org> <9624.12.7.175.2.1183421112.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> <20070703011147.GA26350@caradoc.them.org> <8387.12.7.175.2.1183425658.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8387.12.7.175.2.1183425658.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00051.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 06:20:58PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > You've convinced me -- I don't understand this one. > I'm going to kick it back to Coverity -- consider this one withdrawn. Thanks, could you let me know what they say? I can't see the mistake, but probably it has to do with why they marked empty_set as const... -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery