From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27925 invoked by alias); 7 Dec 2011 23:36:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 27795 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Dec 2011 23:36:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net (HELO elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net) (209.86.89.61) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 23:35:51 +0000 Received: from [70.170.59.51] (helo=macbook2.local) by elasmtp-galgo.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1RYR1i-0000BH-Pb for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 07 Dec 2011 18:35:50 -0500 Message-ID: <4EDFF856.4090309@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2011 23:50:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: creating the gdb-7.4 branch tomorrow (?) References: <20111205081911.GG28486@adacore.com> <20111207095313.GA21915@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20111207095313.GA21915@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: ae6f8838ff913eba0cc1426638a40ef67e972de0d01da940703d70a66c0d74f4513035dd2aacf520350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2011-12/txt/msg00242.txt.bz2 On 12/7/11 1:53 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Stan, Yao, > >> I found a issue http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2011-12/msg00177.html >> And I think it is really affect tracepoint function(Second tstart will >> reproduce it). > [assuming that we can't get this problem fixed today] > > You seem to be the ones having made the most modifications to > tracepoint.c. Can you help us evaluate whether the fix is likely > to be considered "risky"? If you think the fix is going to be relatively > simple, then we can go ahead with the branch, and fix the problem on > the branch. If not, then we have to wait before we branch, and that > means opening the door for other problems to creep in. > There is something to fix here, and I'm still not clear on the right solution, but it's safe to say that it will be a small and localized fix, so there's no reason to hold off branching because of this. Stan