From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31374 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2008 16:31:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 31338 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Feb 2008 16:31:53 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:31:30 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 975DF2A9944; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:31:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id steV+eIRAjR3; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:31:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E4482A9842; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:31:28 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F1324E7ACB; Wed, 20 Feb 2008 08:31:25 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2008 16:31:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Nick Roberts Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: (gdb-6.8) Discard breakpoint address if shared library is unloaded Message-ID: <20080220163125.GA3669@adacore.com> References: <20080204214226.GF20922@adacore.com> <20080207063817.GA3907@adacore.com> <18347.45621.630420.453287@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200802080942.29622.ghost@cs.msu.su> <18348.1691.478013.310214@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080214214246.GC3713@adacore.com> <18357.3708.628053.809241@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080219190143.GH3713@adacore.com> <18363.13851.966889.923773@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18363.13851.966889.923773@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2008-02/txt/msg00331.txt.bz2 Nick, > You might find it disappointing that I've not rerun the testsuite but > I find it disappointing that I have had to submit complete patches for > code, doumentation and testsuite to revert changes which I pointed out > broke things for Emacs. Here is my point of view. It's my personal opinion on it and others may have a different view on this, but FWIW: IMO, the reason why a change "broke" emacs is because the GUD mode in emacs made some undocumented assumptions on the format of that ouput of one of the CLI commands. I recognize the importance of staying compatible, particularly in a case like this where it seems relatively easy to achieve. But you have to understand that nowhere did we promise that we would make the CLI output "compatible". But again, we'll do our best. I have been more than willing to work with you on this, by delaying the release and reviewing your patches, but I think we'll save each other a lot of suffering if you accept that you are now in charge of fixing this issue without trying to determine whether it should be you or someone else that should be doing this. So how about you submit a complete patch, following the usual protocol rather than an abbreviated one? I'll review it promptly, and we can put this episode behind us. As I said before, I reviewed the breakpoint.c patch and it looked fine, so it's just a matter of taking a look at the testsuite failures and adjust the testsuite accordingly (if justified). -- Joel