From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19432 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2010 19:40:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 19419 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Apr 2010 19:40:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,TW_CP,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (HELO smtp.gentoo.org) (140.211.166.183) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:40:20 +0000 Received: from vapier.localnet (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82C561B4027; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:40:18 +0000 (UTC) From: Mike Frysinger To: Mark Kettenis Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: workaround sparc memcpy fortify error Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:40:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.1 (Linux/2.6.33.2; KDE/4.4.1; x86_64; ; ) Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1268964549-30380-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> <20100421160141.GB19194@adacore.com> <201004211608.o3LG8rNo016697@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <201004211608.o3LG8rNo016697@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1541195.iXjrnBD9uG"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201004211540.44433.vapier@gentoo.org> 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: 2010-04/txt/msg00696.txt.bz2 --nextPart1541195.iXjrnBD9uG Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 476 On Wednesday 21 April 2010 12:08:54 Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > It was a ping for > > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gdb.patches/56350 > >=20 > > Aha - Mark Kettenis seemed to be OK with this, since he's the one > > who suggested it. Mark, is this patch still OK? >=20 > Hmm, can we keep the existing gdb_assert() and just add the len <=3D 8 > one? With that change, this is fine with me. fine by me. i can also add a comment about the gcc PR if people want. -mike --nextPart1541195.iXjrnBD9uG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. Content-length: 836 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJLz1S8AAoJEEFjO5/oN/WBtQIQAJ9dUSbXgVjULGL++owQnImP 6X+4Jos4t6KeRBZGhRWtt5eUYq/gkna4swFZyTtB0cCeBDWjeEnlCZcrMqs+PU8V IsHhpCPDJ5WejvMdON/pOTX6XqUi9ibLiUsoVhx6k2z+/obrtDDldzrZGpqwIlKM w+CEuD3GMQ66X/doXVuLg5vIT1vvJK/M9JuUF5wSiwRyNrfz8oIytwT4n1bBdSLQ 1CnO8L3EjDMy4j9w1mHanEw3loCB1yyHmdoU/Py57o9gqChmZKvBe1k8X8zQuEG/ 2IaCUI1OGqvCcTCvqGhfW1hBychYHQZFOO8rwtio3i5RrYaKdwN8e6GKyuSIx8Fo syFPSNPnn0IlnYrcGA3I2TEsIsVpK5H8HAft2cq/hTcbCLIaZ/JswQFV5yFOGx4R OHEwJu06hdsvLtu8l4KEy6L0HeZuPBEmkUrHmFIT30qesh1cxA88liX3Ic7xdDz7 7nHtIgtE5jgP24sK0IGPixm7Mycdy7foS9INVPGNAMtuzNBTQr3F3ty6mwK+7cH1 7W9WjqPF21yKpIsbzBWKBGlewoxwf5iOym+9HXXm8MHUdWlEBJMFaO6909Xktr0p 2Uikka59ZLHbdlr4dj5JVo+vqoHMlj2G/71Pukv4+7P+xJmuntB1EyAXBHl2+Lzj Fe7HioTUnBOJMI1+j0HS =nYAg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1541195.iXjrnBD9uG--