From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16658 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2015 18:19:16 -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 16642 invoked by uid 89); 2 Nov 2015 18:19:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:19:15 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2670AA7; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:19:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id tA2IJCrB011629; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 13:19:12 -0500 Message-ID: <5637A91F.4020309@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 18:19:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org CC: qiyaoltc@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix length calculation in aarch64_linux_set_debug_regs References: <1446475684-31936-1-git-send-email-simon.marchi@ericsson.com> <56378884.70001@redhat.com> <563798BC.3000407@ericsson.com> <5637A400.4020500@redhat.com> <5637A8BC.3020301@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <5637A8BC.3020301@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg00018.txt.bz2 On 11/02/2015 06:17 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 15-11-02 12:57 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> OK. Still not sure whether it's a bug or not. It may still be invalid C++ that >> happens to be accepted by clang++. > > Looking at the standard (well, the latest draft of it), section 18.2, my > understanding is that it should behave the same way as C. How do you suggest > we find out? Maybe ask on gcc-help@. Thanks, Pedro Alves