From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28785 invoked by alias); 14 Dec 2010 05:23:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 28777 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Dec 2010 05:23:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 05:23:26 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76D852BAB69; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 00:23:21 -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 p0VIz47aMVer; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 00:23:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0321C2BAB66; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 00:23:20 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 4D572145B58; Tue, 14 Dec 2010 06:23:09 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 05:23:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: 24h call for gdb-7.2.1 release Message-ID: <20101214052309.GH2596@adacore.com> References: <20101213102445.GF2596@adacore.com> <20101213184952.GA29492@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101213184952.GA29492@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-12/txt/msg00205.txt.bz2 > I have been faced downstream with various GDB crashes fixed by Pedro's: > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11371 > > Just the backport is not clean much so probably let it miss 7.2.1. We're going to have to wait a little to evaluate a little more some crashes in MI that Mark reported. So we also have time to look at this. I'm not sure what the problem with the backport might be. I tried cherry-picking the patch, and the only conflicts were in the ChangeLog files (we are going to have to get rid of those, one of these days). So the patch applies cleanly for me. The problem that I see, then, is evaluating the risk of putting this change in the branch. It's pretty large, and could potentially contaminate all breakpoints, but should be limited to watchpoints. It's been in HEAD since Aug, so 4 months, now. Do we know of any problem that was introduced by this patch? If not, then I'm OK with putting it in 7.2.1, fixing any problem with a 7.2.2 if necessary. -- Joel