From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11247 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2011 10:51:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 11135 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Mar 2011 10:50:40 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from aquarius.hirmke.de (HELO calimero.vinschen.de) (217.91.18.234) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.83/v0.83-20-g38e4449) with ESMTP; Thu, 03 Mar 2011 10:50:32 +0000 Received: by calimero.vinschen.de (Postfix, from userid 500) id 49E782C04BE; Thu, 3 Mar 2011 11:50:29 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2011 10:51:00 -0000 From: Corinna Vinschen To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfa] remote-fileio.c, remote_fileio_func_fstat, uninitialized st.st_ino. Message-ID: <20110303105029.GA22636@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <4D6EBB4A.9080207@vmware.com> <20110303082857.GA10587@calimero.vinschen.de> <20110303092532.GW30306@adacore.com> <201103031004.02585.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201103031004.02585.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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/msg00165.txt.bz2 On Mar 3 10:04, Pedro Alves wrote: > 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? That would be the simplest solution. Afterwards, just set the non-zero fields. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Cygwin Project Co-Leader Red Hat