From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2733 invoked by alias); 3 Oct 2007 18:51:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 2725 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Oct 2007 18:51:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:51:31 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB26598152; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 18:51:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97CD598100; Wed, 3 Oct 2007 18:51:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Id9Je-0000Z1-Gh; Wed, 03 Oct 2007 14:51:26 -0400 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Pierre Muller , 'Pedro Alves' , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Stabs parsing regression from GDB 6.6 to GDB 6.6.90 Message-ID: <20071003185126.GA1976@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Joel Brobecker , Pierre Muller , 'Pedro Alves' , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <46F486B4.6050900@portugalmail.pt> <46F56F04.6070601@portugalmail.pt> <46F707C3.1090105@portugalmail.pt> <006101c7fe8b$70d5af70$52810e50$@u-strasbg.fr> <4053daab0709240321n40d7e3e0vc0f7d5567e990785@mail.gmail.com> <006701c7feae$fbb75850$f32608f0$@u-strasbg.fr> <46F8C1C8.7080608@portugalmail.pt> <46F9A061.2020909@portugalmail.pt> <001b01c805b5$ce7f0730$6b7d1590$@u-strasbg.fr> <20071003184156.GC4305@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071003184156.GC4305@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2007-10/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 11:41:56AM -0700, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > I definitively think that this patch should go both into > > head and branch, but it needs approval from someone else... > > Unless someone like Elena who knows this code very well says it's safe, > I would prefer if the patch didn't get applied to the branch. I'm a bit > concerned about it given the few iterations that you both had to go > through in order to get it to that point. It just shows that it is > not obvious. I think it's a bad idea to ship a release of GDB with a new bug that we know about, which wasn't present in the previous release. I read through the patch. It seems fine to me, though I am mostly trusting Pedro, Pierre, and their test cases. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery