From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 709 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2011 10:04:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 698 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Mar 2011 10:04:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 10:03:58 +0000 Received: (qmail 29075 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2011 10:03:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 3 Mar 2011 10:03:56 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfa] remote-fileio.c, remote_fileio_func_fstat, uninitialized st.st_ino. Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 10:04:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-27-generic; KDE/4.6.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Joel Brobecker , Corinna Vinschen References: <4D6EBB4A.9080207@vmware.com> <20110303082857.GA10587@calimero.vinschen.de> <20110303092532.GW30306@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20110303092532.GW30306@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201103031004.02585.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2011-03/txt/msg00163.txt.bz2 On Thursday 03 March 2011 09:25:32, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > 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. Can't we just memset `st' instead? -- Pedro Alves