From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23864 invoked by alias); 17 May 2011 21:01:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 23856 invoked by uid 22791); 17 May 2011 21:01:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Tue, 17 May 2011 21:01:35 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p4HL1Y8Q006469 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 17 May 2011 17:01:34 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4HL1YXF020714; Tue, 17 May 2011 17:01:34 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p4HL1XvA027193; Tue, 17 May 2011 17:01:33 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id 1C63D379188; Tue, 17 May 2011 15:01:32 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Keith Seitz Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] physname cross-check [Re: [RFA] Typedef'd method parameters [0/4]] References: <4DB09E6C.8000202@redhat.com> <4DCC50D8.5030903@redhat.com> <20110516154851.GA24555@host1.jankratochvil.net> <4DD2BB36.5000704@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 21:01:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4DD2BB36.5000704@redhat.com> (Keith Seitz's message of "Tue, 17 May 2011 11:15:18 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2011-05/txt/msg00394.txt.bz2 Jan> It reports for me 34524 unique failures on libwebkit.so.debug. (Sure such Jan> count is caused only by a few physname computation bugs.) Keith> I will start looking into these and filing/fixing bugs when my plate Keith> opens up here in the next day or two. I can put aside what I am doing and help out with this. Can you push a branch with your patches, and Jan's checking patch, to archer.git? We can split up the problems and work on them. Jan> Therefore I would propose a sinful idea to temporarily just use Jan> DW_AT_linkage_name if it is available to ever release gdb-7.3 and Jan> make DW_AT_linkage_name-less GDB a feature for gdb-7.4. After all Jan> such cross-check should exist anyway for verifying both GCC and GDB Jan> bugs this way. Keith> For me, what really matters is what is best for users. Is reverting Keith> dwarf2_physname better or worse than DW_AT_MIPS_linkage_name? I think either answer has some bad qualities, even if you just consider the 7.3 release. With Jan's proposal we are basically going back to the state before physname. As Keith points out, this regresses a good chunk of the new tests that went in with physname. Keeping physname means further delaying 7.3 and probably accepting that we will have more as-yet-unknown regressions. I don't have a good basis on which to evaluate the evidence pro or con. My default position is to try push forward, not back: fix the bugs in physname. If there is more evidence for or against either approach, I would love to know it. Jan> What do you think? Keith> In the end, it probably doesn't really matter what I think. :-) IMO, Keith> this all boils down to risk management. Which path is least risky for Keith> users and most conducive to moving forward? Keith> This is a decision for you and other maintainers to consider. No fair trying to escape. And, your opinion does matter. Tom