From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-75114-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 13676 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2010 19:49:15 -0000
Received: (qmail 13666 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Aug 2010 19:49:14 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.44.51)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:49:06 +0000
Received: from kpbe14.cbf.corp.google.com (kpbe14.cbf.corp.google.com [172.25.105.78])	by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o7NJn4dp032286	for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:49:04 -0700
Received: from vws5 (vws5.prod.google.com [10.241.21.133])	by kpbe14.cbf.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o7NJn36u009715	for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:49:03 -0700
Received: by vws5 with SMTP id 5so5099867vws.9        for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:49:03 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.121.142 with SMTP id h14mr3512670vcr.108.1282592942922; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.189.205 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:49:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20100823185451.GA3512@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
References: <20100817003114.087EA84B8F@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com>	<m3vd79hcti.fsf@hase.home>	<AANLkTimPfvoVFExCZLC4EytcjH=KarwpMost6CVn6XOx@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTikhm-hsb4NPgaG5syea=fJ5o+Gfq68D22Hwe1W4@mail.gmail.com>	<20100820073430.GA28054@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net>	<20100820073703.GA19257@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net>	<Pine.LNX.4.64.1008201152480.2209@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>	<AANLkTi=L2dyE_1D_MB_9TMenifmmHZkORC+3MGFcbh98@mail.gmail.com>	<20100823185451.GA3512@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:49:00 -0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=6F-xAp7NsZJqM=W7C_bueUvmziBhhGaVoS-jh@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix new FAIL `reject p 0x1.1' [fixup]
From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Cc: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>,        Andreas Schwab <schwab@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-System-Of-Record: true
X-IsSubscribed: yes
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/msg00396.txt.bz2

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:54 AM, Jan Kratochvil
<jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 17:35:07 +0200, Doug Evans wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Joseph S. Myers <joseph@codesourcery.co=
m> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:34:30 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>> >> 0x1.1 is a perfectly valid hexadecimal floating point. =A0The new tes=
tcase:
>> >
>> > It's not valid in C source code (a binary exponent is required), thoug=
h it
>> > is valid as input to strtod (like INF, NAN, NAN(n-char-sequence_opt) e=
tc.)
>> > - is the intention here that GDB deliberately accepts something beyond
>> > what would be valid in C source code?
>>
>> I don't know what gdb is intended to accept.
>
> So far I believe GDB is intended to be more relaxed than the C compiler.

In general sure, but general rules need to be re-evaluated for each
context in which they're applied.
In this context ... I'm not sure, but I don't have a strong opinion either.=
 :-)

> (PR symtab/11846 -> is accepted interchangeable with .)
> (static symbols get resolved from not-current CUs)
> etc.
>
> While thanks for catching it I still believe now my testcase update is the
> appropriate fix - if glibc supports then extended input syntax let the GDB
> user benefit from it.

It's ok with me.