From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-100597-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 7460 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2013 08:21:09 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 7449 invoked by uid 89); 17 Apr 2013 08:21:08 -0000
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
Received: from mail-vc0-f174.google.com (HELO mail-vc0-f174.google.com) (209.85.220.174)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:21:08 +0000
Received: by mail-vc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id kw10so1104715vcb.5        for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 01:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=google.com; s=20120113;        h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id         :subject:from:to:content-type:x-gm-message-state;        bh=67dsSHDWI6nnSGGVBng1++FAclYNwXvSgwSvR3bmlDU=;        b=caqsNYEMQa1K27dooLcWbXvloEf5GexbNjDTg+I4fc9R6iaOMqZgH3TlofBr/q4aRI         tsSRl79CAg0R0X9KkMfYi/jH5v820TCZiSonS2fbRBQlictUdQCaKvSB/oMDW902Dau3         bTxhZ3h2kqbkk6IV/8dJFgI83mvDH3cXMPP5e5f8JynQZfHgoo4Phz7LXSBzzC1mzy0O         WRIamO82nN8KNPEVkdI6AcXZXsUs+xZfWQ/D1m6BbVZgsFnuxb3GczGqwmVSJVqnZutm         eCb8AR/2skctvNb4nFl4yXCA/gMYSkKyWAMD3mprRzSHEb/2sao8FQzCFZECthb6PGFE         AVOg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.170.143 with SMTP id am15mr3442883vdc.87.1366186866374; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 01:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.123.70 with HTTP; Wed, 17 Apr 2013 01:21:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <yjt2ehe9r31a.fsf@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com>
References: <yjt2ehe9r31a.fsf@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 15:10:00 -0000
Message-ID: <CADPb22Q2ALdsLqSKUNZvJW31Yxx2-n4W91j0Yw7qQfNFj7fy4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] gdb_bfd_count_sections snafu
From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
To: gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlh0ARaPieSVA9ZNRufIr0LTw9Wd/ZCD4pe+mS4tJAnfP3znbxV5Q2TgqJgjK6VIcNForHyx2ywaHeeYQglSMLnrYdxxd9tm8ojhb1WFLtl9Kl9egHZD6b0lj0YStEPvWIUNjkhIqCbR5qn6muz5KBu8qu3gN1fzu1b0qwlCaxZVK4Wnvhma6WbQZINzehzW+YTia9//CJxAspPiAzqYcTuS0fbFQ==
X-SW-Source: 2013-04/txt/msg00523.txt.bz2

On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
> [...]
> My preference would be code changes to remove the possibility
> for picking the wrong one, but that would, I think, be non-trivial.

Well, for completeness sake,
another thing we can do is add more asserts to catch the wrong
num_sections value being used.