From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3364 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2012 08:08:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 3316 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Sep 2012 08:08:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:08:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8E88VMB013356 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 14 Sep 2012 04:08:32 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-113-58.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.58]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8E88SPV015135 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Sep 2012 04:08:30 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 08:08:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch+7.5?] Fix GDB-return into TAILCALL_FRAME (PR 14119) Message-ID: <20120914080827.GB8584@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120912180235.GA13250@host2.jankratochvil.net> <874nn13b8k.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120913223722.GA18571@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120913223722.GA18571@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: 2012-09/txt/msg00271.txt.bz2 On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 00:37:22 +0200, Joel Brobecker wrote: > 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. Why not; but in reality I do not think the patch can make tail-call frames behavior worse than it already is. Thanks, Jan