From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9461 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2011 16:36:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 9411 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jul 2011 16:36:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:35:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p66GZGFc021173 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:35:35 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-113-91.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.91]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p66GWMTV026941 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 6 Jul 2011 12:32:24 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p66GWMCH031430; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 18:32:22 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p66GWKXX031429; Wed, 6 Jul 2011 18:32:20 +0200 Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:37:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker 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: <20110706163219.GA31225@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <4E0FAB8D.2070709@rawbw.com> <20110704214654.GA21844@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20110705170728.GY2407@adacore.com> <20110706105409.GA8840@host1.jankratochvil.net> <20110706160704.GC2407@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110706160704.GC2407@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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/msg00200.txt.bz2 On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 18:07:04 +0200, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > 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... If Paul is going to implement the multi-JITer one as he was talking about. Otherwise I would be for update by me of the very last patch of mine which PASSed unload + reload as 739571cc3151651f49f7171cfd98275d983bfaaa^ did. > (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... yes Thanks, Jan