From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16772 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2013 05:32:16 -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 16753 invoked by uid 89); 8 Nov 2013 05:32:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE,SPAM_SUBJECT,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 08 Nov 2013 05:32:13 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA85W5nm031764 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 8 Nov 2013 00:32:05 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-94.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.94]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rA85W4JN002932 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 8 Nov 2013 00:32:04 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Sanimir Agovic Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] test: evaluate pointers to C99 vla correctly. References: <1382366424-21010-1-git-send-email-sanimir.agovic@intel.com> <1382366424-21010-8-git-send-email-sanimir.agovic@intel.com> <87siv8szhf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 06:37:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87siv8szhf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Thu, 07 Nov 2013 13:55:56 -0700") Message-ID: <8738n7sbl8.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00219.txt.bz2 Tom> I suppose right now gcc claims that 'vla_ptr' has type 'int *'. Tom> But I don't see why that is necessarily so. Are compilers required to Tom> declare this parameter as an "int *" and not "int[n]"? Ok, I read up on array-like declarators and I see that this actually is how C is defined, even for VLAs. Given that I think this patch is fine. Tom