From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 44474 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2018 04:04:12 -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 44460 invoked by uid 89); 9 Mar 2018 04:04:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-26.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,GIT_PATCH_0,GIT_PATCH_1,GIT_PATCH_2,GIT_PATCH_3,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: simark.ca Received: from simark.ca (HELO simark.ca) (158.69.221.121) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Mar 2018 04:04:11 +0000 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-251-162.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.251.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 472161E03D; Thu, 8 Mar 2018 23:04:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: Fix riscv ARI issues To: Andrew Burgess , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20180307224121.19941-1-andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <5e675b74-7776-76b7-fb65-eaa56b0a7357@simark.ca> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 04:04:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180307224121.19941-1-andrew.burgess@embecosm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2018-03/txt/msg00187.txt.bz2 Hi Andrew, On top of what Sergio said: > diff --git a/gdb/riscv-tdep.c b/gdb/riscv-tdep.c > index 11b12279321..d84e7aba76a 100644 > --- a/gdb/riscv-tdep.c > +++ b/gdb/riscv-tdep.c > @@ -481,7 +481,7 @@ riscv_register_name (struct gdbarch *gdbarch, int regnum) > { > static char buf[20]; > > - sprintf (buf, "csr%d", regnum - RISCV_FIRST_CSR_REGNUM); > + xsnprintf (buf, 20, "csr%d", regnum - RISCV_FIRST_CSR_REGNUM); sizeof (buf) instead of hard-coding 20? Thanks, Simon