From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30041 invoked by alias); 28 Jan 2014 18:22:41 -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 29993 invoked by uid 89); 28 Jan 2014 18:22:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com Received: from e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com (HELO e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com) (195.75.94.109) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:22:40 +0000 Received: from /spool/local by e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:22:37 -0000 Received: from d06dlp02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (9.149.20.14) by e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com (192.168.101.143) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:22:35 -0000 Received: from b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay09.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.194]) by d06dlp02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBBA0219005C for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:22:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.228]) by b06cxnps3074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s0SIMMgp917816 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:22:22 GMT Received: from d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s0SIMYrJ002823 for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:22:34 -0700 Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.85.9]) by d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVin) with SMTP id s0SIMWLd002802; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:22:32 -0700 Message-Id: <201401281822.s0SIMWLd002802@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 28 Jan 2014 19:22:32 +0100 Subject: Re: heads up: GDB 7.7 official release Wed Jan 29th (tomorrow) To: brobecker@adacore.com (Joel Brobecker) Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:22:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20140128180722.GJ4101@adacore.com> from "Joel Brobecker" at Jan 28, 2014 10:07:22 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-MML: disable X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 14012818-2966-0000-0000-00000A126433 X-SW-Source: 2014-01/txt/msg01019.txt.bz2 Joel Brobecker wrote: > > So I guess I'm wondering if you see workable options to still > > get powerpc64le-linux support into a release in the near future ... > > Maybe we could do a 7.7.1 ? > > I'm a bit uncomfortable including support for a new target like that > without more testing, particularly since the changes affects files > already in use by other ports. I had a quick look, and perhaps the > changes can be reviewed well enough to convince ourselves that they > are indeed safe enough for the branch. > > Here is what I propose: > > 1. We delay the release to Monday (Feb 3rd). > > 2. During that time frame, let's try to get the changes reviewed > by at least one more GM - it might be me. I would certainly appreciate that -- thanks! As to changes in other ports, I think it should be pretty clear that non-PowerPC platforms cannot really be affected. (There are some changes to common code in the 11/11 patch, but that shouldn't affect any platform that do not define gdbarch_skip_entrypoint.) As to other PowerPC platforms, I've tested powerpc64-linux quite a bit -- I would be happy to also run a regression test on a 32-bit Linux and on AIX. > It would be good to get a sense of when people think gcc-4.9 is going > to come out. Last I looked, the branch hadn't been created yet. > Perhaps, one option is to schedule 7.8 to coincide with gcc-4.9 > (or slightly before, if we'd like to). I guess that might be OK as a fall-back solution. Thanks, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU/Linux compilers and toolchain Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com