From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 98337 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2017 13:40:20 -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 97376 invoked by uid 89); 19 Jun 2017 13:40:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:454 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 ESMTP; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:40:17 +0000 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8299F85365; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:40:21 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 8299F85365 Authentication-Results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx01.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=palves@redhat.com DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mx1.redhat.com 8299F85365 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93924174AD; Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:40:18 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] C++ify gdb/common/environ.c To: Sergio Durigan Junior , Simon Marchi References: <20170413040455.23996-1-sergiodj@redhat.com> <20170616222315.12779-1-sergiodj@redhat.com> <4e43c71a2ac4aa229bb262e18dec668c@polymtl.ca> <87tw3cy5h7.fsf@redhat.com> Cc: GDB Patches From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 13:40:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87tw3cy5h7.fsf@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-06/txt/msg00512.txt.bz2 On 06/19/2017 05:19 AM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote: > I > think it also makes a lot more sense to always initialize the vector > with a NULL element, because this means we're correctly dealing with the > case where there's no environment variable to be passed to the inferior. This sentence confuses me, because I don't understand what you mean by "correctly" here. What was incorrect? Thanks, Pedro Alves