From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-135226-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 33258 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2016 16:32:21 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 33224 invoked by uid 89); 24 Nov 2016 16:32:20 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:524, perfect
X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 24 Nov 2016 16:32:14 +0000
Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27])	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))	(No client certificate requested)	by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 93DA4635F9;	Thu, 24 Nov 2016 16:32:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn03.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.3])	by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id uAOGWCKK002893;	Thu, 24 Nov 2016 11:32:12 -0500
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Fix copy_bitwise()
To: Andreas Arnez <arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <1479135786-31150-1-git-send-email-arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1479135786-31150-3-git-send-email-arnez@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <6032efa2-828d-7423-4720-6925a9b4ea4b@redhat.com> <m3oa1dvqzj.fsf@oc1027705133.ibm.com> <a5eee71c-6249-1b5d-00ea-330468e8b01c@redhat.com> <m3k2c0vnec.fsf@oc1027705133.ibm.com> <22c53936-c8c5-fc1e-f50b-d208ef21587f@redhat.com> <m360ncj1mg.fsf@oc1027705133.ibm.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <4043613b-095e-877c-2c0d-34d2fa42eb8b@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2016 16:32:00 -0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <m360ncj1mg.fsf@oc1027705133.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2016-11/txt/msg00766.txt.bz2

On 11/24/2016 04:15 PM, Andreas Arnez wrote:

> Hm, I'm not quite convinced.  Fooling the test with a broken algorithm
> is probably easier with regular test patterns than with pseudo-random
> ones.  For instance, consider an implementation that does not advance
> the byte position in the source buffer at all.

Agreed.

> 
> I do understand your concern about being "deterministic", though.  Thus
> I've taken another shot, see the patch below.

Perfect!

Please push.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves