From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-74853-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 4573 invoked by alias); 10 Aug 2010 23:15:47 -0000
Received: (qmail 4563 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Aug 2010 23:15:47 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0	tests=BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from slice-1.puremagic.com (HELO mail.puremagic.com) (173.45.241.208)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 23:15:42 +0000
Received: from slice-2.puremagic.com (slice-2.puremagic.com [173.45.231.2])	by mail.puremagic.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9ubuntu1) with ESMTP id o7ANFSHg031689;	Tue, 10 Aug 2010 16:15:29 -0700
Received: by slice-2.puremagic.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)	id 9697944103; Tue, 10 Aug 2010 23:15:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])	by slice-2.puremagic.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92AFA440E3;	Tue, 10 Aug 2010 16:15:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 23:15:00 -0000
From: Brad Roberts <braddr@puremagic.com>
To: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: patch for crash in d-lang.c's demangler
In-Reply-To: <m3k4ny9kql.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1008101614150.23754@slice-2.puremagic.com>
References: <4C55E1CE.5000301@puremagic.com> <m3k4ny9kql.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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
X-SW-Source: 2010-08/txt/msg00135.txt.bz2

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010, Tom Tromey wrote:

> >>>>> "Brad" == Brad Roberts <braddr@puremagic.com> writes:
> 
> I think your patch is reasonable, but the line just after your change is
> weird:
> 
> >        if (i <= 0  && strlen (mangled_str) < i)
> >          return 0;
> 
> I don't think that condition can ever be true.

Agreed.  Your patch looks good.  I feel guilty about not contributing a 
unit test to cover this case, so I shouldn't poke you about not adding one 
either, but if you feel like feeling that guilty... :)

Thanks,
Brad