From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id Za0NFJjQUmgMYRMAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:43:36 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1750257816; bh=/ACSxtF35KMI7SrD8e3cLtU0u5G20dWbEp0rpsS+45g=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=vYD1tzuN2mytGomXz+WRVmcFG7pgqDwck/E6JioE6jU4bMMXAr5c5h5DuGUGUne0o IGNP9uYtdW/EFVrmaCceYepNra5L2xc2/xUD2BgplCxscTyuKNgJVQp/H/TZZA0VQl UsBkCliaiUYyX+5Idk2K8NvIy4kV8BT2lxgRaxRo= Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 403561E11C; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:43:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-25) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.1 required=5.0 tests=ARC_SIGNED,ARC_VALID,BAYES_00, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED,RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=Ncikjgje; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=umz8lcrF; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from server2.sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 851251E089 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:43:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 397E7381623C for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 14:43:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 673593886637 for ; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 14:43:11 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 673593886637 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org 673593886637 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=158.69.221.121 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1750257791; cv=none; b=LjiR+LDlIvdfw1N2I6sAg5l2xPBUguLOWnNj2riEkpMzNcXi8f5ZYQG3VKu37A01qOERhWkN4oxOnuup67UON75MMerdSHfi85853dbsxRwfTXo/0JerOdj6nwpFXlsHbhDC1WHx5Q9iQKDPgDxabA8GZsdTLN7wupitXYm7aKw= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1750257791; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/ACSxtF35KMI7SrD8e3cLtU0u5G20dWbEp0rpsS+45g=; h=DKIM-Signature:DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: Subject:To:From; b=bbSUYGYnQj8p79ezrRavnbJp2aJwAIEEhdbSi5np4HPIK7ez6ZgcXkI81+3EhWfAbMLyqTXjpY5Q0YK17ZEWhTzLs3nLjHvrkJNcBjFMC5fAp4UpFGnSjwO6jEaax4HR8YpQVRQPZAN3sJTQ1oZxSfigb/msO119/WzISZwBv6M= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 673593886637 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key, unprotected) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=Ncikjgje; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=simark.ca header.i=@simark.ca header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=mail header.b=umz8lcrF DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1750257791; bh=/ACSxtF35KMI7SrD8e3cLtU0u5G20dWbEp0rpsS+45g=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=NcikjgjezUXPTF4+zv1UffZrTRNTaL7+epeZn5rUv/fC2C5/T0V3JNbmCx0Uy9K/N DmrrckSloYZEr+L1HXatmpz/bs/QXLas2RGNxHsMPSizty+GWvL+4Q8Y9y4b3yYpgT GVA94SqQP8MPTQv8gaK6PuYbr8R9pakn+bALGyXc= Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 130F01E11E; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:43:11 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1750257790; bh=/ACSxtF35KMI7SrD8e3cLtU0u5G20dWbEp0rpsS+45g=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=umz8lcrF7MIyemNARd+YDElwYoqm2j1g8/n3bnUMH8E3Gn0diNzWyaTta3ns63A5S b893tAI744tOn1KudE69Hiei80TywXotR8rU8PH7LLksiCuQXq7tDDl6Dl3CeI97db l9tXQ9nyQzo6l0+IuW8yq2qFyB1aOVyqbPj3KPik= Received: from [172.16.0.192] (192-222-132-26.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.132.26]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E57A11E089; Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:43:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <6031cab4-1872-4de1-8089-2e6e5d10e0e1@simark.ca> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2025 10:43:09 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] gdb/progspace: add solib_ops pointer in program_space To: Guinevere Larsen , Simon Marchi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20250616193443.16703-1-simon.marchi@efficios.com> <20250616193443.16703-5-simon.marchi@efficios.com> <1085bd17-956a-449a-bb9d-eb89a90ac7fc@simark.ca> <348dddac-02ff-4750-afb6-cf87ea9aded2@redhat.com> Content-Language: fr From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: <348dddac-02ff-4750-afb6-cf87ea9aded2@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces~public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org On 6/18/25 7:51 AM, Guinevere Larsen wrote: > On 6/17/25 5:33 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: >>> Thanks for working on this series! I have one very minor nit in this patch, but with that fixes, you can feel free to add my review tag >>> >>> Reviewed-By: Guinevere Larsen >>> >>> Feel free to add it to patches 1-4 as well, as I looked over them and they all LGTM. I still don't feel qualified to offer it for patch 6, though. >> Thank you! >> >> Given your review, I plan to push this series probably tomorrow. You >> can start rebasing and adjusting your series on top, and then I can >> hopefully review it this week (note that I'm off this Friday, so it >> would have to be Thursday max). > > I'll rebase and try to get it ready to send to the list by tomorrow, but I'll also go on vacation starting friday and only return July 7th, so if that series gets approved before GDB 17 branches, I'll need someone to push it for me. Actually, which patches of my series would be useful to you? Would it be sufficient to merge patches 1 to 3, or 1 to 4? I think they are relatively low-risk, compared to the last two. It feels safer to merge the last two just after the GDB 17 branching, so that they have more time to get tested in master. Simon