From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 46208 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2015 05:29:16 -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 46197 invoked by uid 89); 23 Apr 2015 05:29:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 05:29:14 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3N5TD0N007816 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 01:29:13 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-27.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.27]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3N5TAcX030793 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 23 Apr 2015 01:29:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 05:29:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Phil Muldoon Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] compile: Use libcc1.so->libcc1.so.0 Message-ID: <20150423052909.GA18986@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20150421213616.14023.38329.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <55380F04.9050909@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <55380F04.9050909@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg00857.txt.bz2 On Wed, 22 Apr 2015 23:13:40 +0200, Phil Muldoon wrote: > Will this mean that the next release of GDB will require GCC 5.0.1 (or > whatever the next version of GCC after 5.0)? > > If so, then, I object. This could mean many months of GDB and GCC > releases not coinciding and no functionality being present. If not, > how does GDB work with an older GCC? It also does not seem a good > thing to change the API before GCC 5.0 is even released. There is now released gcc-5.1. Upstream GCC has approved it now for trunk, that is gcc-6.0. (For Fedora a backport can be easily done for whatever version combinations.) > I think as far as possible we want to be fault tolerant with > GCC. Another solution is to add another method to the end of the > vtable of functions presented to GDB from the GCC plugin, and save API > changes for more synchronized and planned changes. So you request forward/backward compatibilities, specifically: (1) Do you request future gdb-7.10 is compatible with existing gcc-5.x? (2) Do you request future gcc-6.0 is compatible with existing gdb-7.9? With an answer for (1) and (2) we can decide on how to implement it. Jan