From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Cc: keiths@redhat.com, Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Subject: GDB 7.10 release 2015-07-17 status update?
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2015 17:53:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150717175328.GA15874@adacore.com> (raw)
Hello,
It's been almost 2 weeks since we branched, and there has been a number
of issues fixed since then.
On the wiki (https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/GDB_7.10_Release),
we have 1 TODO item left:
- Eval with KeithS regressions due to GCC 5.1 (regressions caused by
GCC rather than GDB)
For this one, the latest (private) update I got from Keith was
that GDB was likely in the clear - mostly GCC issues? Keith?
We still have 2 "Maybe"'s:
- [GCC review/Jan] PR compile/18485 (set debug compile: Display GCC driver
filename)
- [GCC review/Jan] PR compile/18486 (Add 'set compile-gcc')
If the reason for it being a "Maybe" is time, we can probably give you
a little extra time (see below).
I've moved the following item to the Exclude list, as per Pedro's
recommendation:
- PR gdb/18600 (After forking and threads spawning, gdb leaves newly
created threads stopped) (too delicate)
David Edelson reported that the buildBot was reporting a lot of
failures around the time we cut the branch. Has anyone looked at those
since then? When I did, I was looking at the waterfall view, and
several builds looked like they were failing right at the beginning,
so I didn't know what to make of it. Also, that's a lot of info to
grok, so I didn't have time to look further.
What I can say is that I've tested the branch with a number of
platforms, not as exhaustively of course, but so far, it looks
pretty good.
What I think we should do is give it another couple of weeks, and
see if other reports come up. It would be good, also, if we had
some info about the buildBOT failures, and whether the release
might be affected by any regression it found.
So, I propose a re-sync on Aug 3rd.
--
Joel
next reply other threads:[~2015-07-17 17:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-07-17 17:53 Joel Brobecker [this message]
2015-07-17 18:14 ` Luis Machado
2015-07-17 18:32 ` Joel Brobecker
2015-07-17 18:38 ` Luis Machado
2015-07-17 19:06 ` Eli Zaretskii
2015-07-17 20:48 ` Joel Brobecker
2015-07-17 20:57 ` Luis Machado
2015-07-20 10:13 ` Iain Buclaw
2015-07-21 17:16 ` Joel Brobecker
2015-07-17 19:04 ` Eli Zaretskii
2015-07-17 19:03 ` Eli Zaretskii
2015-07-24 9:26 ` Pedro Alves
2015-07-24 14:31 ` Iain Buclaw
2015-07-24 14:37 ` Pedro Alves
2015-07-17 18:25 ` Keith Seitz
2015-07-17 18:28 ` Jan Kratochvil
2015-07-17 18:35 ` Joel Brobecker
2015-07-17 20:15 ` Simon Marchi
2015-07-17 20:57 ` Joel Brobecker
2015-07-17 21:00 ` Simon Marchi
2015-07-17 20:24 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2015-07-20 10:06 ` Yao Qi
2015-07-21 17:11 ` Joel Brobecker
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150717175328.GA15874@adacore.com \
--to=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=keiths@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox