From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24396 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2012 22:37:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 24345 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Sep 2012 22:37:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO 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; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:37:28 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19BA81C7C86; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:37:28 -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 BzpQFFY1p0ez; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:37:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C67AD1C7C85; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:37:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 89204CB7D9; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:37:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 22:37:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch+7.5?] Fix GDB-return into TAILCALL_FRAME (PR 14119) Message-ID: <20120913223722.GA18571@adacore.com> References: <20120912180235.GA13250@host2.jankratochvil.net> <874nn13b8k.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <874nn13b8k.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2012-09/txt/msg00257.txt.bz2 > Jan> No regressions on {x86_64,x86_64-m32,i686}-fedora18-linux-gnu. > Jan> I would think this should be even for 7.5. > > Me too. I'm inclined to say it should go in. I have to say, the patch makes me a little nervous. But I agree that an internal-error is horrible. That's 2 GMs in favor of putting it in 7.5, so it's OK with me. Perhaps you might want to hold off on the branch, and observe the patch on the HEAD before porting it to the branch? Just a suggestion, I don't mind either way. -- Joel