From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1767 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2012 20:34:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 1627 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Aug 2012 20:34:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 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; Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:34:36 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7GKYYbd025935 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:34:34 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7GKYXaN008525 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 16 Aug 2012 16:34:34 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdb-7.5 branch ready for first release? References: <20120803134518.GZ27483@adacore.com> <87mx2bna7c.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20120816200704.GA2798@adacore.com> Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 20:34:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20120816200704.GA2798@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:07:04 -0700") Message-ID: <87mx1umv8m.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (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: 2012-08/txt/msg00463.txt.bz2 Tom> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2012-08/msg00117.html Joel> Looks a little tricky, and MarkK expressed some reservations on Joel> the approach. I suggest we keep this one out of 7.5? FWIW I already put it on the branch. I tend to think it belongs there. If I understand Mark's objections correctly -- he still hasn't written back with the details we asked for -- they are about the design of the tailcall sniffer. However, this patch doesn't affect that design one way or another. Instead it fixes a concrete bug in the code. It does so in a way that, I believe, is safe and relatively clear. Tom