From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11287 invoked by alias); 7 Jul 2009 19:56:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 11279 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Jul 2009 19:56:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_56,RCVD_IN_JMF_BL,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout4.012.net.il (HELO mtaout3.012.net.il) (84.95.2.10) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:56:20 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout3.012.net.il by i_mtaout3.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KMF00E00G8X9G00@i_mtaout3.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:56:16 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.126.249.41]) by i_mtaout3.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KMF008B7GPPAX90@i_mtaout3.012.net.il>; Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:56:14 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:56:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [patch] Support counted strings and embedded nulls in value.string In-reply-to: <4A53A734.4040803@redhat.com> To: Phil Muldoon Cc: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83r5wsz2qp.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4A4A3F27.9060401@redhat.com> <4A52FA05.9050607@redhat.com> <83skh8z424.fsf@gnu.org> <4A53A734.4040803@redhat.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2009-07/txt/msg00215.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:51:16 +0100 > From: Phil Muldoon > CC: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > Sorry, I missed that because you sent the patch as binary attachment. > > > > > Thanks. I'm not sure what this means, I attached the patch as an > attachment just like all the others I've sent. I don't think I've > changed any behaviour in any/all patches I've sent as attachments? What > did you see? Never mind, that was just a lame attempt at saying sorry. > What I was trying to convey was the string will be converted up to > the the optional length, ignoring any nulls That's exactly what you should say, it is crystal clear that way. Thanks.