From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5295 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2011 17:19:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 5286 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Oct 2011 17:19:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.44.51) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:18:55 +0000 Received: from wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com (wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com [172.24.198.88]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p96HIsC1006042 for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:18:54 -0700 Received: from qabg27 (qabg27.prod.google.com [10.224.20.219]) by wpaz24.hot.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p96H9pYk015208 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:18:54 -0700 Received: by qabg27 with SMTP id g27so5030072qab.7 for ; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 10:18:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.207.9 with SMTP id e9mr734273ybg.355.1317921534043; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 10:18:54 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.207.9 with SMTP id e9mr734260ybg.355.1317921533560; Thu, 06 Oct 2011 10:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.142.15 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Oct 2011 10:18:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:19:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Status of 'blacklist' patch? From: Diego Novillo To: Justin Lebar Cc: Tom Tromey , Lawrence Crowl , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2011-10/txt/msg00165.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:07, Justin Lebar wrote: > I last pinged gdb-patches about the patch on May 16 and got no response. > > I imagine the patch has bitrotted by now. =C2=A0I'd be happy to bring it = up > to date if there were a reasonable chance it would get reviewed this > time. Thanks. I would very much like to see it in GDB but I have no real way of making it happen other than to generate user demand for it. Over on GCC, we are discussing converting some macros into one-liner inline functions and we want to avoid the mess this would cause for 'step' in the presence of things like foo(f(g()), h()). One additional request that came up in the thread I pointed you to (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg00324.html) is Jakub's request to blacklist DW_AT_artificial functions by default. I think that's a good idea. Thanks. Diego.