From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29843 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2012 14:43:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 29829 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Sep 2012 14:43:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:43:08 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8EEh5IB012905 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 14 Sep 2012 10:43:05 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q8EEh4aP015346 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 14 Sep 2012 10:43:04 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch+7.5?] Fix GDB-return into TAILCALL_FRAME (PR 14119) References: <20120912180235.GA13250@host2.jankratochvil.net> <874nn13b8k.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120913223722.GA18571@adacore.com> <20120914080827.GB8584@host2.jankratochvil.net> Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 14:43:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20120914080827.GB8584@host2.jankratochvil.net> (Jan Kratochvil's message of "Fri, 14 Sep 2012 10:08:27 +0200") Message-ID: <87ipbg1x8n.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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 X-SW-Source: 2012-09/txt/msg00286.txt.bz2 >> Perhaps you might want to hold off >> on the branch, and observe the patch on the HEAD before porting it >> to the branch? Just a suggestion, I don't mind either way. Jan> Why not; but in reality I do not think the patch can make tail-call Jan> frames behavior worse than it already is. Fair point. I think putting it on trunk and waiting isn't extremely likely to reveal bugs. I think you need a fairly specific setup to even encounter this feature -- a recent gcc and builds with optimization enabled. Tom