Re: GDB 10.2 release (respin) -- 2021-01-31 Update

[Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>]

On 2021-01-31 1:45 a.m., Joel Brobecker wrote:
>   * [SimonM] <PR gdb/26828>
>     SIGSEGV in follow_die_offset dwarf2/read.c:22950
>     https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26828
> 
>     I see that Simon posted a patch series that the bug reporter
>     confirmed fixes the issue; 2 patches were pushed, and 2 remain.
> 
>     [PATCH 3/4] gdb/dwarf: don't enqueue CU in maybe_queue_comp_unit if already expanded
>     https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-January/175265.html
>     (asking TomT if he has an opinion)

Indeed, I am ideally waiting for Tom to OK it.  If he doesn't have time,
I am reasonably confident with the patch to merge it.  If we think he
won't have time, I think it's better to merge it earlier than later,
that gives more time for any potential problem to surface.

>   * [<UNASSIGNED>] <PR backtrace/27147>
>     [GNU/Linux, sparc64] GDB is unable to print full stack trace (got "previous frame inner to this frame" errors)
>     https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27147
> 
>     As the subject says, it's an unwinder issue.
>     Simon was able to reproduce, and tied this issue to a specific
>     commit adding multi-target support.
> 
>     It's a 9->10 regression, so it would be nice to fix, but the risk
>     at the moment, is that the PR is currently not assigned, so there is
>     no "champion" to look after it.
> 
> Simon also requested we consider:
> 
>   * [SimonM] <PR symtab/26813>
>     DW_FORM_rnglistx and DW_FORM_loclistx not fully supported
>     https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26813
> 
>     Simon posted a patch series on Jan 20th:
>     [PATCH 00/13] DWARF 5 rnglists & loclists fixes (PR 26813)
>     https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-January/175221.html

This is now pushed on master.  Do I have your OK to backport it?  My
argument for backporting it is that support for processing these DWARF5
attributes was new in GDB 10, but GDB chokes on any non-trivial use of
them (like when there are two compile units using rnglists).

Not all patches are tagged with PR 26813 (because they are
cleanups/refactor), but the important ones, that contain the actual
fixes, do have it.  Is that ok for the release branch?

Simon