From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27391 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2013 21:13:59 -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 27380 invoked by uid 89); 19 Aug 2013 21:13:58 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:13:58 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43BB6116664; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:14:01 -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 VpZtWvBo7xmA; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:14:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB12E116662; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 17:14:00 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A4F42C26DA; Mon, 19 Aug 2013 14:13:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2013 21:13:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Andreas Arnez , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Andreas Krebbel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Skip VDSO when reading SO list Message-ID: <20130819211354.GE4346@adacore.com> References: <87d2p9oi4i.fsf@br87z6lw.de.ibm.com> <20130819182907.GA2145@host2.jankratochvil.net> <20130819204217.GD4346@adacore.com> <20130819204625.GA8918@host2.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130819204625.GA8918@host2.jankratochvil.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00527.txt.bz2 > 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. I can understand your rationale. I've had situations like that, at work. Unfortunately for me, I was always on the other side of the fence, getting hurt so that the pressure could remain on those whom we expected the fix from. It's a bit unfortunate, but if you believe it is necessary, then so be it. > Another thing would be if you do not agree with the glibc patch; but > that is not the case here I think. Not at all. The rationale is as you said: Although the fix will hopefully eventually find itself in glibc, some users will still be using older systems where the fix is missing. If we can help those people (again, without hurting other users - or your chances to get the glibc patch in), then let's do it. -- Joel