From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27841 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2011 04:26:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 27831 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Mar 2011 04:26:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 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; Wed, 09 Mar 2011 04:26:43 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A2EA2BADBE; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 23:26:41 -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 9qZDUz1kHlX3; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 23:26:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 003EA2BAD80; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 23:26:40 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7F7011459AD; Wed, 9 Mar 2011 08:26:15 +0400 (RET) Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2011 05:29:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: quick status on gdb-7.2.1 & gdb-7.3? (Mar 07) Message-ID: <20110309042615.GT30306@adacore.com> References: <20110307122732.GC2478@adacore.com> <20110308182421.GA9555@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110308182421.GA9555@host1.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: 2011-03/txt/msg00584.txt.bz2 > FYI worth considering is a gcc-4.6 bug workaround for GDB: > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12435 > > But it should be fixed for gcc-4.6.0 GA so maybe GDB does not have to care. Normally, I would say that we should be resilient to debug info bugs. In this particular case, the decision is a little harder to take, because it appears that the bug does not appear in a GCC release (and hopefully won't); and also, the fix is in a sensitive area... That being said, I don't have a particular objection to the fix if it doesn't complexify the code too much, and some comments are added. -- Joel