From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11874 invoked by alias); 23 Apr 2015 11:24:14 -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 11865 invoked by uid 89); 23 Apr 2015 11:24:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:24:13 +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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21722AC7AE for ; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:24:12 +0000 (UTC) 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 t3NBO9JV014470; Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:24:10 -0400 Message-ID: <5538D659.7030903@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:24:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Phil Muldoon , Jan Kratochvil CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] compile: Use libcc1.so->libcc1.so.0 References: <20150421213616.14023.38329.stgit@host1.jankratochvil.net> <55380F04.9050909@redhat.com> <20150423052909.GA18986@host1.jankratochvil.net> <5538CF08.60801@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5538CF08.60801@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg00864.txt.bz2 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