From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8256 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2013 17:20:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 8246 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Mar 2013 17:20:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:20:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r27HKYZB005206 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:20:35 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r27HKXtm030854; Thu, 7 Mar 2013 12:20:34 -0500 Message-ID: <5138CC61.5070002@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2013 17:20:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130219 Thunderbird/17.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Keith Seitz CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org ml" Subject: Re: [RFA] cleanup: while (isspace) -> skip_spaces{,_const} References: <5137EE7A.9080500@redhat.com> <5138C2D6.6070700@redhat.com> <5138CAC7.8060503@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5138CAC7.8060503@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2013-03/txt/msg00303.txt.bz2 On 03/07/2013 05:13 PM, Keith Seitz wrote: > On 03/07/2013 08:39 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > >> This now continues forward even if *addr_exp is '\0', >> while before the patch it didn't. > > Yes, that's right, it is a subtle change that I missed because... > >> And it seems to be we'll now reach that last error in that >> case, while we wouldn't before. Can we trigger that with >> "info register rip ", say? > > ...it has no effect. In execute_command, top.c:461, the command parser strips trailing whitespace. Thanks, I keep forgetting that. > I can add a check for *addr_exp == '\0' again, if you'd like. Fine with me to leave it be. I was going to suggest a gdb_assert, but the normal error already catches this, and we can react then if some caller behaves differently. -- Pedro Alves