From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: "Pierre Muller" <pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix display of array of unspecified length inside structures
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:38:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201102181524.45999.pedro@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <00c301cbcf7b$afaa6d20$0eff4760$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr>
On Friday 18 February 2011 14:54:03, Pierre Muller wrote:
> > On Friday 18 February 2011 11:08:38, Pierre Muller wrote:
> >
> > > PS: It could be wise to add some test in the testsuite for
> > > this, but I have no idea where I could insert this kind of test,
> > > any ideas?
> >
> > Yes, please. We have surprisingly few tests for this sort of
> > thing, AFAICS. I'm not even sure this is a regression from
> > my recent changes, I think it may well not be.
>
> I checked out gdb version 7.2 shows this regression,
> as compared to Cygwin 6.8 at least...
> Which means that the regression is not really recent.
>
> This might means that we should also merge this patch to
> the branch, no?
Sound fine to me.
>
> > Zero-length arrays (as poor man's flexible arrays) are supported
> > in GNU C as an extension. To be portable, you'd
> > need to use an array of length 1 (or c99's real flexible arrays),
> > but that won't trigger the bug.
> Apparently there is also the flexible array member construct
> see
> http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.1.2/gcc/Zero-Length.html
That just confirms what I said. :-) The flexible array
member construst is C99 only, so it's likely that other
compilers choke on it by default.
> > I'd point at printcmds.exp, but I'm not sure if there are compilers
> > out there that choke on the construct... There's always a
> > new test file option...
> >
> > > PS2: It is probably impossible to make such a test without
> > > alloca or some other memory allocation function, no?
> > > Are there any system restriction for this?
>
> There is a long check at start of gdb.base/funcargs.c
> but it might just be to really check that alloca really uses
> the stack...
Irk. Just use malloc then? It's not really crutial that
the test runs on all targets/hosts. As long as it runs
on the targets must people are developing on (GNU/Linux,Windows),
it's fine, we're reasonably well covered.
--
Pedro Alves
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-02-18 15:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-18 11:34 Pierre Muller
2011-02-18 11:59 ` Pedro Alves
2011-02-18 15:01 ` Pierre Muller
2011-02-18 15:38 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2011-02-18 17:39 ` Pierre Muller
2011-02-18 17:41 ` Pedro Alves
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201102181524.45999.pedro@codesourcery.com \
--to=pedro@codesourcery.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=pierre.muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox