From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-157582-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 12146 invoked by alias); 30 Oct 2009 13:20:25 -0000
Received: (qmail 12132 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Oct 2009 13:20:24 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-pz0-f181.google.com (HELO mail-pz0-f181.google.com) (209.85.222.181)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 13:20:18 +0000
Received: by pzk11 with SMTP id 11so1843503pzk.14         for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.203.15 with SMTP id a15mr86699rvg.183.1256908817218; Fri,  	30 Oct 2009 06:20:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4AEAE700.7060203@oracle.com>
References: <4AEAD273.7050908@oracle.com> 	 <1256905677.31256.1479.camel@cerberus.qb5.org> 	 <4AEAE1E8.9000904@oracle.com> 	 <84fc9c000910300609g6795af36pe4625f0a5372397a@mail.gmail.com> 	 <4AEAE700.7060203@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:50:00 -0000
Message-ID: <84fc9c000910300620g79de035cx184c2ef469e855c6@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Library ABI seriously broken!!
From: Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com>
Cc: Jerry Quinn <jlquinn@optonline.net>, "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>,  	"libstdc++" <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>, jason@redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-10/txt/msg00628.txt.bz2

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini@oracle.com> w=
rote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> where you replaced build_string (strlen (name) + 1, name) with
>> build_string (strlen (name), name). =A0I don't know if this renders the
>> ABIs incompatible, but I doubt it - it would be nice to verify that inde=
ed
>> just extra '\0's are now missing at the end.
>>
> To be clear: if knowledgeable people can confirm this kind of reasoning,
> of course I have no objections, but then abi_check must be also fixed at
> the same time, nothing should committed leading to regressions, either
> substantive or only apparent.

I fully agree with you here.  A simple solution is to re-instantiate the +1
(with a comment before it).

Richard.