* Re: [patch] Add start of mips32/mips64 support to sim/mips/mips.igen
[not found] ` <3A5ED09C.95B1CE17@cygnus.com>
@ 2001-01-12 18:01 ` Chris G. Demetriou
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Chris G. Demetriou @ 2001-01-12 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: GDB Patches
Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes:
> [Ah, summer and holidays...]
And for me, the holidays and the acquisition. 8-)
As noted elsewhere (and to the FSF assignment folks), I'm in currently
in an interesting situation w.r.t. my assignment paperwork. In a
nutshell I need to get the employer disclaimer done before i submit
any more non-trivial changes. (However, the existing submissions
should be OK, as should any obvious bug fixes to them that are
necessary.)
I'm working on resolving this, obviously.
> Chris, could you please add yourself and my self to sim/MAINTAINERS as
> mips sim maintainers.
Yes, sure, i'll do that in a bit.
(Obviously, regardless of my current assignment status, I can read and
comment on others' MIPS-related patches. 8-)
> I'll next go through each of the patches (but
> they should be ok). Once the backlog is cleared, we can probably start
> using a much simpler self-approval process.
Actually, if you'd please hold off on that, I'd appreciate it.
When I did the original patches, I didn't check any mips16 variants,
and some subsequent testing on my end showed a few problems there.
I'd like to get them sorted through before any of the changes goes in.
thanks,
chris
From ac131313@cygnus.com Fri Jan 12 18:10:00 2001
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
Cc: Nicholas Duffek <nsd@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] gdbarch.sh: document REGISTER_SIZE and REGISTER_BYTES
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 18:10:00 -0000
Message-id: <3A5FB7E6.699D6C07@cygnus.com>
References: <200101032041.PAA14834@nog.bosbc.com> <3A5EF4D0.C838379@cygnus.com> <3A5F46B6.216D@redhat.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-01/msg00101.html
Content-length: 944
Michael Snyder wrote:
>
> Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> > Given that pseudo-register values are created using a fuction and raw
> > register data, do they have any storage?
>
> Sometimes yes, sometimes no. A pseudo-register can be just
> an alias for another register, in which case it can share
> storage. But it can also be a computed value, in which case
> it may have its own storage. I had one case in which a
> pseudo-register was the concatenation of two regular
> registers -- but they weren't consecutive, so I had to
> give the pseudo its own storage and copy them.
As far as I can tell, in all these cases that pseudo register could have
been implemented as a functon. The only reason I can think of for
having to allocate storage is to work around warts in the way registers
are currently implemented. If the core of GDB only accessed registers
using read/write methods then the storage problem could go away.
enjoy,
Andrew
From ac131313@cygnus.com Fri Jan 12 18:15:00 2001
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Nick Duffek <nsd@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] New register definition interface
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 18:15:00 -0000
Message-id: <3A5FB8E3.8E778C41@cygnus.com>
References: <3A5F09B3.93555F06@cygnus.com> <200101122144.f0CLi0104421@rtl.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-01/msg00102.html
Content-length: 568
Nick Duffek wrote:
>
> On 12-Jan-2001, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> >At a guess the cli/* change is independant of the file reg.c.
>
> It depends on regs.c, but not vice versa. So yes, it could have been a
> separate add-on patch.
I'm confused. Your saying that the CLI changes depend on regs.c? I
think that is wrong. It should be possible to code the cli so that it
doesn't specificly depend on regs.c. Rather it depends on some abstract
interface. It might be implemented using regs.c but it might also be
implemented using more traditional methods.
Andrew
From ac131313@cygnus.com Fri Jan 12 18:19:00 2001
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Nick Duffek <nsd@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFA] gdbarch.sh: multi-arch PARM_BOUNDARY
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 18:19:00 -0000
Message-id: <3A5FB9DC.13C882CF@cygnus.com>
References: <3A5EF5A4.7C7EF047@cygnus.com> <200101122055.f0CKtkD04372@rtl.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-01/msg00103.html
Content-length: 343
Nick Duffek wrote:
>
> On 12-Jan-2001, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> >This is a new architecture method.
>
> No, it's an existing method, I'm just multi-arching it.
Hmm, cut/paste re-grep. Sorry, yes. I was searching for PARAM_BOUNDARY
(and I can't spell :-)
You don't need approval, just post and then give it a few days to
settle.
Andrew
From jingham@apple.com Fri Jan 12 19:04:00 2001
From: Jim Ingham <jingham@apple.com>
To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [patch] fix for infinite recursion in lookup_symbol
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:04:00 -0000
Message-id: <200101130303.TAA05813@scv3.apple.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.31.0101122049230.14785-100000@www.cgsoftware.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-01/msg00104.html
Content-length: 2475
Daniel,
I am not ragging on you specifically, but it is very very lame (almost
warranting the epithet "egregiously heinous") that a crashing bug has
sat around in the gdb sources for three months or so - with a KNOWN
fix! Particularly one that is triggered by simple actions like trying
to print instance data in only moderately complicated C++ objects.
I understand that there is some argument over whether the current
implementation of C++ symbol lookup is the right one, but while it is in
place, simple fixes to it need to get into the sources quickly. It is
not sufficient to say that the crash was reported in this forum -
Fernando didn't make the connection either, and he is no slouch to say
the least... And most gdb users don't read gdb patches.
Just like no user error, no matter how stupid, should ever result in a
crash, no patch that keeps gdb from crashing should be refused unless
the maintainer can come up with another solution quickly. It is one
thing if gdb doesn't find a symbol, or reports some data wrong. That is
bad, but there is leisure to argue over method, since users can
generally work around it and still get their job done. If gdb crashes -
particularly on a common code path, then users are just stuck...
If it is really the case that this patch is waiting on Jim's approval,
do we need to have a "fast track crash prevention approval mechanism" in
the Maintainer system for gdb?
This sort of thing makes gdb look really bad.
Jim
On Friday, January 12, 2001, at 05:52 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Jim Ingham wrote:
>
>> Daniel,
>>
>> Well, while you are waiting, it might be nice to check in fixes for
>> some
>> of these, since they are pretty simple fixes, and the bugs are pretty
>> annoying (in this case it causes gdb to crash, and people tend to
>> REALLY
>> hate it when their debugger crashes).
>
> I can't without approval from Jim anyway. I'm still waiting for approval
> for some simple changes I submitted a few weeks ago to be approved as
> well, i don't want to juggle that many outstanding patches.
>
>> It wasted a couple of days of my
>> time chasing it down, and apparently a couple of days of Fernando's
>> time
>> as well.
> Sorry to hear that. If you look back, ti was reported in either november
> or december, and a huge discussion ensued.
> Wish there was something more I could do, but it's not my area of
> maintenance, so all I can do is submit patches.
>
>
From dberlin@redhat.com Fri Jan 12 20:43:00 2001
From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@redhat.com>
To: Jim Ingham <jingham@apple.com>
Cc: Daniel Berlin <dberlin@redhat.com>, <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] fix for infinite recursion in lookup_symbol
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 20:43:00 -0000
Message-id: <Pine.LNX.4.31.0101122216180.15353-100000@www.cgsoftware.com>
References: <200101130303.TAA05813@scv3.apple.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-01/msg00105.html
Content-length: 4018
On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Jim Ingham wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> I am not ragging on you specifically, but it is very very lame (almost
> warranting the epithet "egregiously heinous") that a crashing bug has
> sat around in the gdb sources for three months or so - with a KNOWN
> fix!
Yup.
I agree completely.
I take full responsibility for the bug itself, since it was my code that
did it, but it's not something that wasn't noticed, and didn't have a fix.
> Particularly one that is triggered by simple actions like trying
> to print instance data in only moderately complicated C++ objects.
>
> I understand that there is some argument over whether the current
> implementation of C++ symbol lookup is the right one, but while it is in
> place, simple fixes to it need to get into the sources quickly.
I'd happily check them in under an obvious bugfix rule, but I don't want
to step on any toes.
I had enough fun doing that trying to figure out what exact areas of code
C++ maintainer covers, and I still couldn't tell you.
If someone with definite maintainership over the symbol tables says I can
check in the fixes, i'll do it. Otherwise, i won't.
Sorry.
> It is
> not sufficient to say that the crash was reported in this forum -
> Fernando didn't make the connection either, and he is no slouch to say
> the least...
Err, i'm curious, if you noticed a problem with crashes trying to print
C++ objects, why didn't you ask me or Jim, as i'm C++ maintainer, and he's
symbol table maintainer.
> And most gdb users don't read gdb patches. Sure,
i'll give you that.
>
> Just like no user error, no matter how stupid, should ever result in a
> crash, no patch that keeps gdb from crashing should be refused unless
> the maintainer can come up with another solution quickly. It is one
> thing if gdb doesn't find a symbol, or reports some data wrong. That is
> bad, but there is leisure to argue over method, since users can
> generally work around it and still get their job done. If gdb crashes -
> particularly on a common code path, then users are just stuck...
If they use CVS versions, yes.
>
> If it is really the case that this patch is waiting on Jim's approval,
> do we need to have a "fast track crash prevention approval mechanism" in
> the Maintainer system for gdb?
We do, it's the obvious bugfix rule, but it's hard to say what is
obvious to everyone.
I don't feel comfortable making that call right now, I'm pretty tired of
taking the backlash from the people who think it isn't obvious/needed
approval which invariably happens.
As I said, isn't the only patch i've got outstanding, and most of them are
trivial
fixes/improvements, because I've not yet submitted some large improvements
made to memory usage/demangling speed/symbol lookup speed for C++/every
language except C/infrastructure improvements for C++/dwarf2 improvements.
Among other improvements. Normally, I would just keep pinging Jim until I
get a response, but to be honest, all the politicking and crap that
has happened with regards to the steering committee, etc, has
kinda demotivated me, and it's hard to motivate myself to contribute to
gdb outside of work, either large or small improvements.
I'm sure it'll pass in a month or so.
>
> This sort of thing makes gdb look really bad.
Yeah, but it's only in gdb CVS, don't forget.
I get the feeling you guys are shipping CVS gdb's to people.
Well, it's not just a feeling, I have a powerbook with OS X 4F8 (acquired
through a lot of pain and trouble) on it, and
I just looked, and it's GDB 20000912, a CVS version.
Which explains why you keep mentioning users, when the bug only exists in
CVS.
This is a very bad idea to be doing.
However, if you like, I'll happily make sure C++ nicely, if I didn't have
to go through a ton of pain to get new builds so I could check it out (IE
I was seeded the same as the other developers who got 4F8 and friends the
normal way)
I know it's in Darwin CVS, but I can't make that compile without the right
versions of OS X anyway.
--Dan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread