From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7900 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2012 21:44:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 7889 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Sep 2012 21:44:10 -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; Sun, 16 Sep 2012 21:43:57 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B50471C78DE; Sun, 16 Sep 2012 17:43:56 -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 pZOnYckRHKCc; Sun, 16 Sep 2012 17:43:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8397A1C78B5; Sun, 16 Sep 2012 17:43:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B8EE1CB7DF; Sun, 16 Sep 2012 14:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 21:44:00 -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: <20120916214354.GB18571@adacore.com> References: <20120912180235.GA13250@host2.jankratochvil.net> <874nn13b8k.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120913223722.GA18571@adacore.com> <20120914080827.GB8584@host2.jankratochvil.net> <87ipbg1x8n.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87ipbg1x8n.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/msg00301.txt.bz2 > I think putting it on trunk and waiting isn't extremely likely to reveal > bugs. I think you need a fairly specific setup to even encounter this > feature -- a recent gcc and builds with optimization enabled. Fair enough. As I said, I don't mind putting it in the release branch; so if waiting is unlikely to help, then it's OK to put it in now. -- Joel