From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18064 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2013 15:36:40 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 18044 invoked by uid 89); 21 Mar 2013 15:36:33 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 15:36:27 +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 r2LFaOtA021643 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:36:26 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-42.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.42]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r2LFaIdr019060 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Mar 2013 11:36:23 -0400 Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:08:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: fix latent bug in syms_from_objfile_1 Message-ID: <20130321153617.GA15720@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <87ip4m7wxy.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20130320184034.GA708@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87ip4l7swd.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20130321141954.GA10644@host2.jankratochvil.net> <871ub84vo7.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <871ub84vo7.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-03/txt/msg00790.txt.bz2 On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:30:48 +0100, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil writes: > Jan> I always thought such sizeof calculation works even with # of > Jan> elements == 0. Why not? > > It seemed weird to me since it would allocate an object smaller than a > struct section_addr_info. > > I don't mind dropping that line though. I find it allocates excessive element otherwise. There should be "struct other_sections other[0];", that [1] is there only as a workaround for non-GCC compilers. Anyway not worth of more talk. Thanks, Jan