GDB 5.3 Branch 4th Sept 00:00 GMT

GDB 5.3 Branch 4th Sept 00:00 GMT

[Andrew Cagney]

Hello,

It looks like this date is going to hold.  I'll cut the branch using `-D 
2002-09-04' probably 12-24 hrs after the event.  This lets me look back 
at what was happening around 2002-09-04-gmt and decide if making the cut 
really is a good idea :-)

15.2 Branch Commit Policy
http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdbint_15.html#SEC132

The branch commit policy is pretty slack. GDB releases 5.0, 5.1 and 5.2 
all used the below:

     * The `gdb/MAINTAINERS' file still holds.
     * Don't fix something on the branch unless/until it is also fixed 
in the trunk. If this isn't possible, mentioning it in the 
`gdb/PROBLEMS' file is better than committing a hack.
     * When considering a patch for the branch, suggested criteria 
include: Does it fix a build? Does it fix the sequence break main; run 
when debugging a static binary?
     * The further a change is from the core of GDB, the less likely the 
change will worry anyone (e.g., target specific code).
* Only post a proposal to change the core of GDB after you've sent 
individual bribes to all the people listed in the `MAINTAINERS' file ;-)

Pragmatics: Provided updates are restricted to non-core functionality 
there is little chance that a broken change will be fatal. This means 
that changes such as adding a new architectures or (within reason) 
support for a new host are considered acceptable.

A guess at date for the next release (5.4/6.0) is March '03.
http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/schedule/

enjoy,
Andrew

Re: GDB 5.3 Branch 4th Sept 00:00 GMT

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:37:50AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> It looks like this date is going to hold.  I'll cut the branch using `-D 
> 2002-09-04' probably 12-24 hrs after the event.  This lets me look back 
> at what was happening around 2002-09-04-gmt and decide if making the cut 
> really is a good idea :-)
> 
> 15.2 Branch Commit Policy
> http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/current/onlinedocs/gdbint_15.html#SEC132
> 
> The branch commit policy is pretty slack. GDB releases 5.0, 5.1 and 5.2 
> all used the below:
> 
>     * The `gdb/MAINTAINERS' file still holds.
>     * Don't fix something on the branch unless/until it is also fixed 
> in the trunk. If this isn't possible, mentioning it in the 
> `gdb/PROBLEMS' file is better than committing a hack.
>     * When considering a patch for the branch, suggested criteria 
> include: Does it fix a build? Does it fix the sequence break main; run 
> when debugging a static binary?
>     * The further a change is from the core of GDB, the less likely the 
> change will worry anyone (e.g., target specific code).
> * Only post a proposal to change the core of GDB after you've sent 
> individual bribes to all the people listed in the `MAINTAINERS' file ;-)
> 
> Pragmatics: Provided updates are restricted to non-core functionality 
> there is little chance that a broken change will be fatal. This means 
> that changes such as adding a new architectures or (within reason) 
> support for a new host are considered acceptable.
> 
> A guess at date for the next release (5.4/6.0) is March '03.
> http://sources.redhat.com/gdb/schedule/

Wrong row, schedule says February :)  Looks good to me.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: GDB 5.3 Branch 4th Sept 00:00 GMT

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:37:50AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>Hello,
>
>It looks like this date is going to hold.  I'll cut the branch using `-D 
>2002-09-04' probably 12-24 hrs after the event.  This lets me look back 
>at what was happening around 2002-09-04-gmt and decide if making the cut 
>really is a good idea :-)

Personally, I'd consider the bug that I posted earlier today to be a
show stopper since it has the possibility of causing a SEGV from doing
a simple gdb operation.  Or, maybe I'm the only person around who does
a "display /i $pc"...

cgf

Re: GDB 5.3 Branch 4th Sept 00:00 GMT

[Peter Barada]

>Personally, I'd consider the bug that I posted earlier today to be a
>show stopper since it has the possibility of causing a SEGV from doing
>a simple gdb operation.  Or, maybe I'm the only person around who does
>a "display /i $pc"...

I seriously doubt that.  I use disp/i $pc all the time (its especially
helpful for debugging Linux kernel TLB miss code, or figuring out
where my experimental ColdFire compiler generates incorrect code).

-- 
Peter Barada                                   Peter.Barada@motorola.com
Wizard                                         781-852-2768 (direct)
WaveMark Solutions(wholly owned by Motorola)   781-270-0193 (fax)

Re: GDB 5.3 Branch 4th Sept 00:00 GMT

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 05:08:40PM -0400, Peter Barada wrote:
>
>>Personally, I'd consider the bug that I posted earlier today to be a
>>show stopper since it has the possibility of causing a SEGV from doing
>>a simple gdb operation.  Or, maybe I'm the only person around who does
>>a "display /i $pc"...
>
>I seriously doubt that.  I use disp/i $pc all the time (its especially
>helpful for debugging Linux kernel TLB miss code, or figuring out
>where my experimental ColdFire compiler generates incorrect code).

Feel free to doubt it, especially without reading the bug report.

cgf

Re: GDB 5.3 Branch 4th Sept 00:00 GMT

[Christopher Faylor]

On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 06:16:35PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 05:08:40PM -0400, Peter Barada wrote:
>>
>>>Personally, I'd consider the bug that I posted earlier today to be a
>>>show stopper since it has the possibility of causing a SEGV from doing
>>>a simple gdb operation.  Or, maybe I'm the only person around who does
>>>a "display /i $pc"...
>>
>>I seriously doubt that.  I use disp/i $pc all the time (its especially
>>helpful for debugging Linux kernel TLB miss code, or figuring out
>>where my experimental ColdFire compiler generates incorrect code).
>
>Feel free to doubt it, especially without reading the bug report.

Sorry.  I apparently misunderstood what you were saying here.

cgf

Re: GDB 5.3 Branch 4th Sept 00:00 GMT

[Andrew Cagney]

> On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:37:50AM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>>Hello,
>>
>>It looks like this date is going to hold.  I'll cut the branch using `-D 
>>2002-09-04' probably 12-24 hrs after the event.  This lets me look back 
>>at what was happening around 2002-09-04-gmt and decide if making the cut 
>>really is a good idea :-)
> 
> 
> Personally, I'd consider the bug that I posted earlier today to be a
> show stopper since it has the possibility of causing a SEGV from doing
> a simple gdb operation.  Or, maybe I'm the only person around who does
> a "display /i $pc"...

FYI, I've posted a patch to fix this.  I'm planning on pulling it into 
the 5.3 branch.

Andrew