* gdb-7.12.1 update (2017-01-16)
@ 2017-01-16 10:38 Joel Brobecker
2017-01-16 15:35 ` Yao Qi
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Joel Brobecker @ 2017-01-16 10:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches, Yao Qi
Hello,
As far as I can tell, we have currently one PR left that's currently
marked as blocking:
Bug 20939 - GDB aborts if there is an error in disassembly
AFAICT, Yao just sent a series of patches for master:
https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-01/msg00288.html
However, the patch uses C++, and therefore isn't applicable on
the branch as is. The fact that this is a 6-patch series (although
some of it is refactoring) is also creating a little extra nervousness
when so close to the .1.
Before we consider the quicker/pure-C version, is this a regression
compared to 7.11.x?
--
Joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread* Re: gdb-7.12.1 update (2017-01-16)
2017-01-16 10:38 gdb-7.12.1 update (2017-01-16) Joel Brobecker
@ 2017-01-16 15:35 ` Yao Qi
2017-01-18 10:53 ` Joel Brobecker
2017-01-20 16:17 ` Yao Qi
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Yao Qi @ 2017-01-16 15:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: gdb-patches, Yao Qi
On 17-01-16 14:37:50, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As far as I can tell, we have currently one PR left that's currently
> marked as blocking:
>
> Bug 20939 - GDB aborts if there is an error in disassembly
>
> AFAICT, Yao just sent a series of patches for master:
> https://www.sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2017-01/msg00288.html
>
> However, the patch uses C++, and therefore isn't applicable on
> the branch as is. The fact that this is a 6-patch series (although
> some of it is refactoring) is also creating a little extra nervousness
> when so close to the .1.
>
> Before we consider the quicker/pure-C version, is this a regression
> compared to 7.11.x?
Yes, it is a regression compared with 7.11.1. I record this information
in bugzilla as well.
These 6 patches include refactor and test cases, so we don't need to
backport all of them to 7.12 branch. I'd like to give a different fix
for 7.12 branch. I'll post a fix tomorrow.
--
Yao (é½å°§)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: gdb-7.12.1 update (2017-01-16)
2017-01-16 15:35 ` Yao Qi
@ 2017-01-18 10:53 ` Joel Brobecker
2017-01-20 16:17 ` Yao Qi
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Joel Brobecker @ 2017-01-18 10:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Yao Qi; +Cc: gdb-patches, Yao Qi
> Yes, it is a regression compared with 7.11.1. I record this information
> in bugzilla as well.
Thanks for confirming. So indeed blocking.
> These 6 patches include refactor and test cases, so we don't need to
> backport all of them to 7.12 branch. I'd like to give a different fix
> for 7.12 branch. I'll post a fix tomorrow.
Great. thanks!
--
Joel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: gdb-7.12.1 update (2017-01-16)
2017-01-16 15:35 ` Yao Qi
2017-01-18 10:53 ` Joel Brobecker
@ 2017-01-20 16:17 ` Yao Qi
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Yao Qi @ 2017-01-20 16:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Joel Brobecker; +Cc: gdb-patches, Yao Qi
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 3:34 PM, Yao Qi <qiyaoltc@gmail.com> wrote:
> These 6 patches include refactor and test cases, so we don't need to
> backport all of them to 7.12 branch. I'd like to give a different fix
> for 7.12 branch. I'll post a fix tomorrow.
The patch for 7.12 branch is pushed in.
--
Yao (齐尧)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-01-20 16:17 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-01-16 10:38 gdb-7.12.1 update (2017-01-16) Joel Brobecker
2017-01-16 15:35 ` Yao Qi
2017-01-18 10:53 ` Joel Brobecker
2017-01-20 16:17 ` Yao Qi
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox