gdb-6.8 branchpoint

gdb-6.8 branchpoint

[Joel Brobecker]

Hello,

Now that the last known blocking issue has been dealt with, I think
a good branchpoint would be: "2008-02-26 10:00". That's today shortly
after Vladimir checked Nick's change in.

Unless there are some objections (or other suggestions!), I'll create
the branch later this week, and start the release process.

-- 
Joel

Re: gdb-6.8 branchpoint

[Thiago Jung Bauermann]

On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 13:37 -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Now that the last known blocking issue has been dealt with, I think
> a good branchpoint would be: "2008-02-26 10:00". That's today shortly
> after Vladimir checked Nick's change in.
> 
> Unless there are some objections (or other suggestions!), I'll create
> the branch later this week, and start the release process.

Can this go in as well?

http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-02/msg00212.html

This was the comment on the patch, I'm not sure if it's an approval or
not:

http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-02/msg00341.html

Or I could commit it later in the branch and in HEAD...
-- 
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
Software Engineer
IBM Linux Technology Center

Re: gdb-6.8 branchpoint

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 06:53:50PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> This was the comment on the patch, I'm not sure if it's an approval or
> not:
> 
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-02/msg00341.html

I think it is.  If you're not sure in the future, please ask.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Re: gdb-6.8 branchpoint

[Thiago Jung Bauermann]

On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 17:01 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 06:53:50PM -0300, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> > This was the comment on the patch, I'm not sure if it's an approval or
> > not:
> > 
> > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-02/msg00341.html
> 
> I think it is.

Ok, committed.

> If you're not sure in the future, please ask.

Will do. Sorry about the confusion.
-- 
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
Software Engineer
IBM Linux Technology Center

Re: gdb-6.8 branchpoint

[Joel Brobecker]

> Can this go in as well?
> 
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-02/msg00212.html

Yes. I think Mark meant it as an approval. I looked at the patch,
and it seems pretty sound to me too, so I'll remember to check it
in the branch as well.

-- 
Joel

Re: gdb-6.8 branchpoint

[Greg Law]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 570 bytes --]

Hi Joel,

As per earlier on-list discussion, any chance of applying this simple 
fix to prevent random SEGV's in gdb?

Cheers,

Greg

Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Now that the last known blocking issue has been dealt with, I think
> a good branchpoint would be: "2008-02-26 10:00". That's today shortly
> after Vladimir checked Nick's change in.
> 
> Unless there are some objections (or other suggestions!), I'll create
> the branch later this week, and start the release process.
> 


-- 
Greg Law, Undo Software                       http://undo-software.com/

[-- Attachment #2: regcache_fix.patch --]
[-- Type: text/x-patch, Size: 658 bytes --]

Index: gdb/regcache.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/regcache.c,v
retrieving revision 1.163
diff -u -r1.163 regcache.c
--- gdb/regcache.c	1 Jan 2008 22:53:12 -0000	1.163
+++ gdb/regcache.c	4 Feb 2008 22:24:32 -0000
@@ -472,6 +472,9 @@
   regcache_xfree (current_regcache);
   current_regcache = NULL;
 
+  /* Need to forget about any frames we have cached, too. */
+  reinit_frame_cache ();
+
   /* Force cleanup of any alloca areas if using C alloca instead of
      a builtin alloca.  This particular call is used to clean up
      areas allocated by low level target code which may build up

Re: gdb-6.8 branchpoint

[Joel Brobecker]

> As per earlier on-list discussion, any chance of applying this simple 
> fix to prevent random SEGV's in gdb?

Yes, this can go in the branch on the condition that it is approved
by a Global Maintainer for HEAD first.

-- 
Joel

Re: gdb-6.8 branchpoint

[Michael Snyder]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 542 bytes --]

On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 14:30 -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > As per earlier on-list discussion, any chance of applying this simple 
> > fix to prevent random SEGV's in gdb?
> 
> Yes, this can go in the branch on the condition that it is approved
> by a Global Maintainer for HEAD first.

Sorry for joining the discussion late -- as noted on the 
original thread, I'd prefer to fix the problem at the 
reg_flush_command function as attached.  Certainly I meant
to do this when I wrote the darn thing.

Daniel?  This seem about right to you?



[-- Attachment #2: regcache.txt --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 680 bytes --]

2008-02-26  Michael Snyder  <msnyder@specifix.com>

	* regcache.c (reg_flush_command): Void the frame cache as well
	as the registers cache.

Index: regcache.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/regcache.c,v
retrieving revision 1.164
diff -p -r1.164 regcache.c
*** regcache.c	18 Feb 2008 16:37:17 -0000	1.164
--- regcache.c	26 Feb 2008 22:57:31 -0000
*************** reg_flush_command (char *command, int fr
*** 873,878 ****
--- 873,879 ----
  {
    /* Force-flush the register cache.  */
    registers_changed ();
+   reinit_frame_cache ();
    if (from_tty)
      printf_filtered (_("Register cache flushed.\n"));
  }

Re: gdb-6.8 branchpoint

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 02:30:23PM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > As per earlier on-list discussion, any chance of applying this simple 
> > fix to prevent random SEGV's in gdb?
> 
> Yes, this can go in the branch on the condition that it is approved
> by a Global Maintainer for HEAD first.

Now done.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery