From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30077 invoked by alias); 13 May 2010 20:39:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 30068 invoked by uid 22791); 13 May 2010 20:39:20 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 May 2010 20:39:16 +0000 Received: from int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.21]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o4DKdE7d012939 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 13 May 2010 16:39:14 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx08.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o4DKdBxa011220; Thu, 13 May 2010 16:39:14 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o4DKd9Cc023780; Thu, 13 May 2010 16:39:10 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id A538037881C; Thu, 13 May 2010 14:39:09 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: fix bug in pieced value with offset References: Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 20:54:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Tom Tromey's message of "Thu, 13 May 2010 11:04:55 -0600") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) 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: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-05/txt/msg00283.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey writes: Tom> I plan to check this in. I would appreciate comments, though; I think I Tom> got the big-endian stuff right, but I am having trouble thinking about Tom> it very clearly, and I also had trouble creating a test case that might Tom> show the difficulties. I also belatedly realized a second problem: Tom> for (i = 0; i < c->n_pieces; i++) Tom> { I think this loop needs an additional condition to avoid overwriting the destination buffer. I'm testing an updated patch; don't let this stop you from commenting on the rest of it, though :-) Tom