From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31023 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2011 09:25:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 30995 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Mar 2011 09:25:56 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:25:51 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 089422BB113 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 04:25:50 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id DZlte3vHCKaN for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 04:25:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90D4A2BB112 for ; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 04:25:49 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id EBF8B1459AD; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 13:25:32 +0400 (RET) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 09:25:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfa] remote-fileio.c, remote_fileio_func_fstat, uninitialized st.st_ino. Message-ID: <20110303092532.GW30306@adacore.com> References: <4D6EBB4A.9080207@vmware.com> <20110303043643.GV30306@adacore.com> <20110303082857.GA10587@calimero.vinschen.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110303082857.GA10587@calimero.vinschen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2011-03/txt/msg00160.txt.bz2 > I'm just wondering, can we assume that the stat structure has always an > st_ino member? THere are checks for st_blocks and st_blksize in place > already. Is the same required for st_ino? I think it's fine, at least for now. The good news is that this field is described in the Open Group's page for this type: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/basedefs/sys/stat.h.html So I think we can count on it (although, I don't know enough about C to know how much authority this has) But, regardless, I think we can leave it be until such day where we actually come across a system where the field actually does not exist... When that happens, we can easily fix the build failure. -- Joel