From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E9BE63870902 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 20:02:18 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org E9BE63870902 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark@simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (173-246-6-90.qc.cable.ebox.net [173.246.6.90]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 92BA11E509; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 16:02:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: Propose GDB 10 branch this Fri-Sun (Sep 11-13) [2020-09-05 Update] To: Kamil Rytarowski , Joel Brobecker , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20200905205318.GA30158@adacore.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 16:02:18 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: fr Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS, TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2020 20:02:19 -0000 On 2020-09-06 8:07 p.m., Kamil Rytarowski wrote: > Personally, I would like to see gdbserver for NetBSD/amd64 merged for > GDB 10. > > The code is pending upstream and requires more reviewers. I think that's reasonable. I just finished taking a look, I did review it as best as I could. There's not much risk in merging it, and the sooner this is available upstream, the better, so I think we should just go ahead with it. Of course, the more pair of eyes on the code the better, so if somebody else wants to take a look, go ahead. I would also consider including the gdbserver support for ARC, with the same logic. But I don't think that has to block the branch creation, we can easily cherry-pick it. Simon