From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2923 invoked by alias); 25 Oct 2016 18:20:18 -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 2906 invoked by uid 89); 25 Oct 2016 18:20:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:866, H*M:fead 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; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:20:17 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (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 1CCCD80F90; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:20:16 +0000 (UTC) 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 u9PIKE3r032311; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:20:14 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH, v4] PR 20569, segv in follow_exec To: Luis Machado , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1477415521-22010-1-git-send-email-lgustavo@codesourcery.com> <645baeb5-e813-d97d-fcd0-d0c7ea7bf5ba@redhat.com> <3f775c2e-6519-40c3-78da-7da06a940bce@codesourcery.com> Cc: sandra@codesourcery.com From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <90c686ab-090e-fead-5a72-a5d507b50ab7@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 18:20:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3f775c2e-6519-40c3-78da-7da06a940bce@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-10/txt/msg00709.txt.bz2 On 10/25/2016 07:15 PM, Luis Machado wrote: > Before i go ahead and adjust this even more, what's your plan and ETA > for the above? I'll try to post this today. > This is disturbing more code as we try to consolidade > slightly different functions into a single one in order to make things a > bit more clean. But i'm afraid this is besides the point of the original > patch itself? > > I just want to understand what's the end goal, because the scope seems > to be changing slightly with each iteration. :-) No, the scope has not changed at all. Your original version duplicated a large chunk of code, and then the attempt to refactor things did it incorrectly. Still the same scope, but the patch as is, is buggy. Between accepted duplicated code, and fixing the patch, I take the latter. Thanks, Pedro Alves