From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13909 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2011 16:07:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 13897 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jul 2011 16:07:22 -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, 06 Jul 2011 16:07:08 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00C5D2BAF32; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:07:07 -0400 (EDT) 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 dN0lZvdrA5en; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:07:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8718B2BAF0A; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:07:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id F01C0145615; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 09:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:12:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Paul Pluzhnikov , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Yuri , Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [patch,7.3] Fix JIT clang-lli gdb-7.3 regression Message-ID: <20110706160704.GC2407@adacore.com> References: <4E0FAB8D.2070709@rawbw.com> <20110704214654.GA21844@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20110705170728.GY2407@adacore.com> <20110706105409.GA8840@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110706105409.GA8840@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: 2011-07/txt/msg00196.txt.bz2 > That is on unload+reload of the JIT engine. OTOH (a) this case is probably > not faced by normal users and (b) it needs more work for better performance > and (c) in this case maybe the overall multi-JIT rework would be better. So, would the following approach be acceptable? (1) HEAD: Apply Paul's patch, then look at solutions for the remaining failures/regressions... (2) BRANCH: Apply Paul's patch; I think we might want to apply the testcase part as well, even if we still need to figure out why it doesn't work for Jan... Once the patch is applied, we can produce the first pre-release tarball. -- Joel