From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 86802 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2016 18:31:10 -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 86326 invoked by uid 89); 25 Oct 2016 18:31:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:31:00 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-mbx-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.90.203]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1bz6V1-0004PM-9U from Luis_Gustavo@mentor.com ; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:30:59 -0700 Received: from [172.30.1.187] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-mbx-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.90.203) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 11:30:56 -0700 Reply-To: Luis Machado Subject: Re: [PATCH, v4] PR 20569, segv in follow_exec References: <1477415521-22010-1-git-send-email-lgustavo@codesourcery.com> <645baeb5-e813-d97d-fcd0-d0c7ea7bf5ba@redhat.com> <3f775c2e-6519-40c3-78da-7da06a940bce@codesourcery.com> <90c686ab-090e-fead-5a72-a5d507b50ab7@redhat.com> To: Pedro Alves , CC: From: Luis Machado Message-ID: <3ecde577-fd7b-78ed-3d41-2777301cd390@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:31:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <90c686ab-090e-fead-5a72-a5d507b50ab7@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-orw-mbx-04.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.90.204) To svr-orw-mbx-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.90.203) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00710.txt.bz2 On 10/25/2016 01:20 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 10/25/2016 07:15 PM, Luis Machado wrote: > >> Before i go ahead and adjust this even more, what's your plan and ETA >> for the above? > > I'll try to post this today. > Sounds good. >> This is disturbing more code as we try to consolidade >> slightly different functions into a single one in order to make things a >> bit more clean. But i'm afraid this is besides the point of the original >> patch itself? >> >> I just want to understand what's the end goal, because the scope seems >> to be changing slightly with each iteration. :-) > > No, the scope has not changed at all. Your original version duplicated > a large chunk of code, and then the attempt to refactor things did it > incorrectly. Still the same scope, but the patch as is, is buggy. > > Between accepted duplicated code, and fixing the patch, I take the latter. Fine by me. Thanks, Luis