From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13729 invoked by alias); 16 Mar 2012 18:50:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 13719 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Mar 2012 18:50:30 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 16 Mar 2012 18:50:18 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q2GInt2a026822 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:49:56 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-16.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.16]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q2GIBfuB013762 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 16 Mar 2012 14:11:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 18:50:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Siddhesh Poyarekar Subject: Re: [RFA/Ada] Crash when trying to set value of packed array element Message-ID: <20120316181140.GA7683@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <1330556589-3594-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20120316110510.GA25193@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20120316175933.GT2853@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120316175933.GT2853@adacore.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: 2012-03/txt/msg00631.txt.bz2 On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 18:59:33 +0100, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > > - CORE_ADDR new_addr; > > > + long new_offset = offset; > > > > Nitpick - LONGEST (Siddhesh Poyarekar is working on a more thorough fix). > > I know you said it's a nitpick, but I don't understand why you think > it should be LONGEST. "offset" itself is a long, and the only use > of that new_offset is for set_value_offset, which takes an int. Are > the changes you are referring to going to make that a LONGEST? Yes; not sure if in the first phase but I hope so. > I'll fix that as a followup patch if you confirm the above. I do not think it matters if it is checked in as is, there is a huge amount of such cases needing to be caught anyway. Thanks, Jan