From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32636 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2013 20:47:34 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 32627 invoked by uid 89); 19 Aug 2013 20:47:34 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-7.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:47:33 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7JKkTkq031160 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:46:29 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-54.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.54]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r7JKkPvm006239 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 19 Aug 2013 16:46:27 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 20:47:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Andreas Arnez , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Andreas Krebbel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Skip VDSO when reading SO list Message-ID: <20130819204625.GA8918@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <87d2p9oi4i.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <20130819182907.GA2145@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20130819204217.GD4346@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130819204217.GD4346@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00526.txt.bz2 On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:42:17 +0200, Joel Brobecker wrote: > If others can benefit from the patch, and the patch has no or little > adverse effect, I'd suggest putting the patch in the FSF tree, > especially since glib patches are not necessarily trivial to > install for the average user, not to mention the fact that the user > may not even have enough privileges to do so. With the GDB workaround in place it may be difficult to justify the glibc fix. When glibc behaves correctly in the future then I think we can start talking about GDB workarounds for older glibcs. Another thing would be if you do not agree with the glibc patch; but that is not the case here I think. Jan