From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17514 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2013 16:21:04 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 17457 invoked by uid 89); 2 Dec 2013 16:21:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,RDNS_NONE autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from Unknown (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:21:02 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1VnWEp-0006Hy-8x from Maciej_Rozycki@mentor.com ; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 08:20:47 -0800 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.104]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Mon, 2 Dec 2013 08:20:47 -0800 Received: from [172.30.64.230] (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-01.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 16:20:45 +0000 Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 16:21:00 -0000 From: "Maciej W. Rozycki" To: Joel Brobecker , Richard Sandiford CC: Tristan Gingold , , Subject: Re: Release 2.24 In-Reply-To: <20131125122405.GC3114@adacore.com> Message-ID: References: <20130918213245.GO3132@adacore.com> <20131118172117.GD3481@adacore.com> <20131125094745.GA3114@adacore.com> <20131125122405.GC3114@adacore.com> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (DEB 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00043.txt.bz2 On Mon, 25 Nov 2013, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > I'm not sure who has the authority to approve this change for GDB 7.6 > > though. > > I suggest a quick look from the binutils maintainer who approved > the patches on HEAD. Richard, can you help? > For testing, I know you showed the spectacular improvements with > binutils 2.24. Have you tested that it doesn't change anything > when using 2.23, by any chance? Just in the interest of being extra > safe, I think that would be useful testing. It took me a little while to set it up, but I have now did this testing. I ran o32 testing only, for standard MIPS, MIPS16 and microMIPS code (GCC multilibs). I had to tweak compiler options used in testing so as to avoid producing code incompatible with standard MIPS PLT entries, `-fno-optimize-sibling-calls' and `-mno-jals -fno-optimize-sibling-calls' respectively for MIPS16 and microMIPS code. Standard MIPS code required no extra options. There were no regressions in this setup with binutils 2.23 (the tip of binutils-2_23-branch). Maciej