From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-75104-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 27321 invoked by alias); 23 Aug 2010 15:35:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 27302 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Aug 2010 15:35:22 -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) (74.125.121.35)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:35:17 +0000
Received: from wpaz5.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz5.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.69])	by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id o7NFZDQH027868	for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 08:35:14 -0700
Received: from vws19 (vws19.prod.google.com [10.241.21.147])	by wpaz5.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id o7NFZCVj028522	for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 08:35:12 -0700
Received: by vws19 with SMTP id 19so5451601vws.4        for <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 08:35:12 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.80.102 with SMTP id s38mr3314530vck.279.1282577707703; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 08:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.220.189.205 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Aug 2010 08:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1008201152480.2209@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
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>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2010 15:35:00 -0000
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=L2dyE_1D_MB_9TMenifmmHZkORC+3MGFcbh98@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix new FAIL `reject p 0x1.1' [fixup] [Re: [patch] Handle 0 result from sscanf when parsing fp values.]
From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.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/msg00386.txt.bz2

On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 4:58 AM, Joseph S. Myers
<joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>
>> [fixup]
>>
>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:34:30 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> 0x1.1 is a perfectly valid hexadecimal floating point. =A0The new testca=
se:
>
> It's not valid in C source code (a binary exponent is required), though it
> is valid as input to strtod (like INF, NAN, NAN(n-char-sequence_opt) etc.)
> - 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.

My main concern here is that there is a testcase that exercises the
code in question.