From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5966 invoked by alias); 27 Dec 2011 11:13:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 5957 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Dec 2011 11:13:35 -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; Tue, 27 Dec 2011 11:13:23 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE8652BB1F1; Tue, 27 Dec 2011 06:13:22 -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 JShwindnyY3O; Tue, 27 Dec 2011 06:13:22 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D13F2BB1F0; Tue, 27 Dec 2011 06:13:22 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1DBB1145615; Tue, 27 Dec 2011 03:13:11 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:22:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Kevin Pouget Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Python Finish Breakpoints Message-ID: <20111227111311.GF23376@adacore.com> References: <20111221065224.GA4120@adacore.com> <20111227041651.GB23376@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2011-12/txt/msg00837.txt.bz2 > > I've checked in a fix in HEAD. Tested on x86_64-linux without any > > regression. Not sure if we'll want it for the 7.4 branch or not. > > Thanks for this fix, > Just out of curiosity, why wouldn't we want it for the 7.4 branch? I should say first that I haven't rejected the fix for the branch. One thing to consider, however, is the fact that this patch does not actually fix a problem. With a buffer of 100 characters, I don't see how we could overflow. On the other hand, it seems pretty straightforward and could add an extra guard. You never know. -- Joel