From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13448 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2014 18:41:37 -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 13426 invoked by uid 89); 4 Jun 2014 18:41:36 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS 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 ESMTP; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 18:41:34 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s54IfUUK016404 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 4 Jun 2014 14:41:30 -0400 Received: from valrhona.uglyboxes.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s54IfTBV020478 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 4 Jun 2014 14:41:30 -0400 Message-ID: <538F6859.4010004@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2014 18:41:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdb-7.8 branching status (2014-06-04) References: <20140604171843.GX30686@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20140604171843.GX30686@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-06/txt/msg00207.txt.bz2 On 06/04/2014 10:18 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > . PR 16253-induced performance regression > So far, I only heard from Doug who thinks the best option > at this point is to temporarily revert the offending patch. > It would be nice to hear from Keith as well, JIC. I agree. In fact, I think I mentioned this several days ago on IRC. The bug isn't particularly nasty/common/important to block a release. Users have had to deal with it for some time, a little while longer won't hurt. I can provide a patch to revert it from either HEAD or the 7.8 branch. Just let me know which you'd prefer. [That is, if Doug hasn't already done so or is working on it, but I know he's very, very busy at the moment.] Keith