From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30328 invoked by alias); 12 Aug 2004 21:41:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 30318 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2004 21:41:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 12 Aug 2004 21:41:39 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7CLfde3008530 for ; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 17:41:39 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i7CLfSa09146; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 17:41:29 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E047F2B9D; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 17:40:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <411BE3CB.3020308@gnu.org> Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 21:41:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040801 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve i386 prologue analyzer References: <200408012158.i71LwpRw033840@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <3405-Mon02Aug2004070159+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <410EAFBB.5080102@gnu.org> <2914-Tue03Aug2004065313+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <200408061933.i76JX3HJ008032@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <4113EA3B.3000900@gnu.org> <2914-Sat07Aug2004183455+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <41150161.3000306@gnu.org> <41155A83.nail9VC11PTRT@mindspring.com> <7704-Sun08Aug2004065437+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <4115FF44.nail59F11C8I0@mindspring.com> <200408081108.i78B8Cpk009362@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> <411633BE.2010809@gnu.org> <7137-Sun08Aug2004223001+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <4116AEA1.7060900@gnu.org> <2914-Mon09Aug2004220629+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <411961FC.4010007@gnu.org> <6654-Wed11Aug2004065005+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <411A53C6.3020906@gnu.org> <8011-Wed11Aug2004205209+0300-eliz@gnu.org> <411B65D0.1040900@gnu.org> <2914-Thu12Aug2004215629+0300-eliz@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <2914-Thu12Aug2004215629+0300-eliz@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg00475.txt.bz2 >>>> > And I still don't understand what is the rush to release the MIPS >>>> > patch without waiting for another week or two and then releasing the >>>> > i386 patch as well. >> >>> >>> If I were a MIPS user (hmm, I'm even the maintainer), I'd be pretty >>> cheesed off that a fix to get `break main; run' working was being held >>> back due the inistance that it be bundled with an unrelated i386 fix. > > > Sorry, Andrew, this is just reiterating what I already said I didn't > understand: if we care so much for the MIPS, why did you refuse to > wait for it to be fixed in 6.2? I think I answered this: > The MIPS breakage wasn't important enough to deny our mainline users a new release of GDB. Especially when it fixed so many bugs, and especially when the delay could easily be a month.. I've since spoken to some i386 users that benefited from the fixes, they are most pleased - threading debugging is way better - dwarf2 back traces are much better. They clearly benefited from pushing forward with the 6.2 release. Only thing is, they are now asking if we can fix .... :-) > And if 6.2 could hit the street with > MIPS broken, why cannot it stay broken for a week or two more, instead > of letting the i386 remain broken longer? And I also think I've covered this: > However, now that we've got the MIPS patched up, I see no good reason for holding it back. It's no significant work on my part, and provides us with the satisfaction of delivering a better GDB (for MIPS users) sooner. I'm sure the MIPS users would have appreciated the kind gesture. Andrew