From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 93186 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2015 08:27:55 -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 93167 invoked by uid 89); 4 Aug 2015 08:27:54 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: smtp.eu.adacore.com Received: from mel.act-europe.fr (HELO smtp.eu.adacore.com) (194.98.77.210) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:27:54 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1DED28B586A; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:27:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp.eu.adacore.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.eu.adacore.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FxAEoCBY-UFB; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:27:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [10.10.1.112] (cacatoes.act-europe.fr [10.10.1.112]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.eu.adacore.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 81E0928B5867; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 10:27:51 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] D: Support looking up symbols in the current and imported modules To: Iain Buclaw , GDB Patches , Doug Evans References: From: Pierre-Marie de Rodat Message-ID: <55C07787.9090605@adacore.com> Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2015 08:27:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-08/txt/msg00059.txt.bz2 Hello, On 08/03/2015 08:00 PM, Iain Buclaw wrote: > Rebased this against master, in particular to make it compatible with > the recent block_symbol additions. I don't have a GCC-4.1 compiler at > hand, but I don't think I'm doing anything that may trigger build > warnings. Pierre, maybe you want to confirm? Well, I don't have easy access to one neither. ;-) I had a very quick look at your patch and it seems that all usage of block_symbol variables are dominated by at least one affectation (sym = lookup...), so I guess the problem Ulrich and Steve noticed should not arise here. ... except maybe in one place: in find_symbol_in_baseclass, the returned value is uninitialized if we don't enter the FOR loop (is that only possible in practice?). So what about providing {NULL, NULL} as an ininialization value to "sym", there? -- Pierre-Marie de Rodat