From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com>,
Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] compile: Use libcc1.so->libcc1.so.0
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:24:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5538D659.7030903@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5538CF08.60801@redhat.com>
On 04/23/2015 11:52 AM, Phil Muldoon wrote:
> On 23/04/15 06:29, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>>
>> So you request forward/backward compatibilities, specifically:
>>
>> (1) Do you request future gdb-7.10 is compatible with existing gcc-5.x?
>>
>> (2) Do you request future gcc-6.0 is compatible with existing gdb-7.9?
>>
>> With an answer for (1) and (2) we can decide on how to implement it.
>>
>>
>
> Both! ;)
>
> In principle the decision bump is OK; but, and this is the huge
> caveat, we could fix this quite easily by adding another method to the
> vtable exported by the plug-in and not need or require all of the
> tinkering that would be needed downstream. Yes, Fedora could be
> modified to cope with it, but we have to think about the work all the
> other distributions would also have to do if this proposed change were
> implemented.
Not just distributions, but ourselves too. I was much looking forward
to having this feature just work using the system compiler, there's lots
of itches that can be scratched on the gdb side alone. But for people
to first find the itch, they need to be hooked into playing with the
feature first. Permanently keeping the bar high (having to build
gcc trunk) puts people off.
Also, considering an --enable-targets=all build, I'd rather that
gdb was reasonably able to cope with different versions of gcc.
E.g., one might have the most recent version for x86 gcc around, but
not for ARM, etc.
>
> I don't think a version change merits that. And the change is tiny:
> just one more parameter for a function. You could avoid it by having
> two public methods exported in the vtable: foo (old params), foo (old
> params, new params) and then re-factoring out the old function to
> foo_worker_1 and have the two "foo" functions call foo_worker_1 with
> the new parameter or NULL in its place.
>
> I'm not adverse to version changes but I think they should merit the
> change. Possibly as a collection of changes.
I agree.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-23 11:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-21 21:36 Jan Kratochvil
2015-04-21 21:38 ` mail dup cancel: " Jan Kratochvil
2015-04-22 21:13 ` Phil Muldoon
2015-04-23 5:29 ` Jan Kratochvil
2015-04-23 10:53 ` Phil Muldoon
2015-04-23 11:24 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2015-04-23 11:47 ` Jan Kratochvil
2015-04-23 11:59 ` Pedro Alves
2015-04-23 11:42 ` Pedro Alves
2015-04-23 11:51 ` Jan Kratochvil
2015-04-23 11:52 ` Jan Kratochvil
2015-04-23 12:07 ` Pedro Alves
2015-04-23 12:24 ` Jan Kratochvil
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5538D659.7030903@redhat.com \
--to=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jan.kratochvil@redhat.com \
--cc=pmuldoon@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox