From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27594 invoked by alias); 20 Aug 2014 09:41:35 -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 27583 invoked by uid 89); 20 Aug 2014 09:41:34 -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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 09:41:33 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s7K9fV2J030293 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 20 Aug 2014 05:41:31 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s7K9fSMK013858; Wed, 20 Aug 2014 05:41:29 -0400 Message-ID: <53F46D48.2060200@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2014 09:41:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi , Jan Kratochvil CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: --with-babeltrace generates many FAILs References: <20140816204614.GA7000@host2.jankratochvil.net> <53F3457E.5030205@codesourcery.com> <20140819140755.GA30208@host2.jankratochvil.net> <53F41DE5.1010406@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <53F41DE5.1010406@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-08/txt/msg00387.txt.bz2 On 08/20/2014 05:02 AM, Yao Qi wrote: > The patch is updated. OK to apply? I'm wondering whether we really need all this complication for an old version of a library that is quite new-ish, and not relied on for anything really core? I'm wondering whether this check works on Windows, for example. As there's been fixed babeltrace versions for a while, I'd go with simply dropping the workaround, and have integrators build newer GDB with newer babeltrace. I suppose we have a testcase in our testsuite that fails if we remove the workaround and GDB is built with broken babeltrace? That should let the integrator know that it's building again a broken lib. IOW, why do we still need to support 1.1.0? Thanks, Pedro Alves