Mirror of the gdb mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>
To: brobecker@adacore.com (Joel Brobecker)
Cc: gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: GDB 7.0 regressions: s390(x)-linux, ppc(64)-linux, spu-elf
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 16:32:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200909281632.n8SGW1YR004895@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090928153818.GE9019@adacore.com> from "Joel Brobecker" at Sep 28, 2009 08:38:18 AM

Joel Brobecker wrote:

> The target date for release is Wed, so we're about 48 hours away.
> If you feel confident about your fix, then you should go ahead and
> commit to the branch.  According to the guidelines I remember reading
> somewhere (it might be in the MAINTAINERS file), if the change only
> affects one target, we can also discuss putting that change in. For
> the rest of your patches, we need to look at them individually and
> evaluate the risk. Based on that, we can decide whether delaying
> the release is necessary, and whether each patch should be applied
> to the branch and if yes, whether it should be applied now (for 7.0),
> or only after it has had a chance to be tested a little more on the
> HEAD.


Well, my feeling would be:

- Put in the patches that are testsuite-only (7, 8, 9 in my list)
  They should be harmless and significantly clean up test suite
  results on some platforms

- Put in the solely platform-specific patches (3, 5, 6)
  I've tested these, and they definitely help on those platforms

- The bitfield regression (1) seems a serious error affecting
  multiple platforms that really should be fixed, and the patch
  seems straightforward ...

(All the above patches are already in mainline.)


The remaining two PowerPC-related patches (not yet in mainline)
are more difficult:

- The displaced stepping regression is unfortunate, as it completely
  breaks a new feature.  The patch *should* affect only PowerPC, but
  it does need to touch generic files (infrun.c), so there's always
  some risk.  In any case, I'd prefer to get at least some feedback
  before putting it in ...

- The Obj-C changes are not really a regression, so it may not really
  be critical to put those in.  On the other hand, they just touch
  Obj-C code (except for one PowerPC-specific bugfix), and they 
  drastically improve the situation on PowerPC-64, so it would be
  nice ...  Again, I'd definitely like some feedback first.


Thanks,
Ulrich

-- 
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
  Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com


  reply	other threads:[~2009-09-28 16:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-09-27 21:55 Ulrich Weigand
2009-09-28 15:38 ` Joel Brobecker
2009-09-28 16:32   ` Ulrich Weigand [this message]
2009-09-28 18:23     ` Joel Brobecker
2009-09-29  1:05       ` Ulrich Weigand
2009-09-29  1:39         ` Joel Brobecker
2009-09-29 12:55           ` Ulrich Weigand
2009-09-28 16:41 ` Tom Tromey

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200909281632.n8SGW1YR004895@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com \
    --to=uweigand@de.ibm.com \
    --cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
    --cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox