From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28614 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 2004 02:39:13 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 28606 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2004 02:39:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO barry.mail.mindspring.net) (207.69.200.25) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 1 Jun 2004 02:39:13 -0000 Received: from user-119a90a.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.10] helo=berman.michael-chastain.com) by barry.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1BUzB8-0007Vs-00; Mon, 31 May 2004 22:39:02 -0400 Received: by berman.michael-chastain.com (Postfix, from userid 502) id DCC544B104; Mon, 31 May 2004 22:39:03 -0400 (EDT) To: cagney@gnu.org, mec.gnu@mindspring.com Subject: Re: [patch/hpux] hpread.c: init alloca'd memory, pr gdb/1661 Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, randolph@tausq.org Message-Id: <20040601023903.DCC544B104@berman.michael-chastain.com> Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2004 02:39:00 -0000 From: mec.gnu@mindspring.com (Michael Elizabeth Chastain) X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00003.txt.bz2 > Thanks. If you haven't guessed I'm waiting on the doco and hp to be > resolved. Actually, now that I understand this bug, I can say that gdb_6_1-branch has no regressions versus gdb 6.1, right now. That makes me happy. Randolph, what would you think of shipping 6.1.1 without any hp fixes? Or with just my memset fix? I've been thinking about those two possibilities. Right now there are regressions in 21 different test scripts from gdb 6.1 to gdb HEAD. Some of these are fake, and some of them will be fixed by my memset fix. But there are still some real bugs in there, notably watchpoints. I would prefer to fix all the regressions in HEAD; and by the time we do that, 6.1.1 will be out the door, and it will be time to branch 6.2 (branch for 6.2 is scheduled for July, with release in August). You've done most of the work so I defer to your judgement, though. Michael C